zero_test.json

[
    {
        "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 reduce waste of raw materials, the government of sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them. Statement2: To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold.\nPremise1: Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.\nPremise2: Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage won't reduce waste more effectively, however, because if customers tend to keep old appliances longer they are faced with a higher cost of repairs. Statement2: To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4333",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.",
            "O": "Premise1: Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.",
            "P": "Statement1: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them. Statement2: To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Recent unexpectedly heavy rainfalls in the metropolitan area have filled the reservoirs and streams ; water rationing, therefore, will not be necessary this summer.\nPremise1: The water company's capacity to pump water to customers has not kept up with the increased demand created by population growth in the metropolitan area.\nPremise2: In most years the city receives less total precipitation in the summer than it receives in any other season.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Recent unexpectedly heavy rainfalls in the metropolitan area have filled the reservoirs and streams ; total precipitation this summer, therefore, must be the most this year.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3402",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the author's prediction?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In most years the city receives less total precipitation in the summer than it receives in any other season.",
            "O": "Premise1: The water company's capacity to pump water to customers has not kept up with the increased demand created by population growth in the metropolitan area.",
            "P": "Statement1: Recent unexpectedly heavy rainfalls in the metropolitan area have filled the reservoirs and streams ; water rationing, therefore, will not be necessary this summer."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Anthropologist : it was formerly believed that prehistoric homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans interbred with neanderthals, but dna testing of a neanderthal's remains indicates that this is not the case. Statement2: The dna of contemporary humans is significantly different from that of the neanderthal.\nPremise1: The dna of prehistoric homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of neanderthals than is the dna of contemporary humans.\nPremise2: Any similarity in the dna of two species must be the result of interbreeding.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Anthropologist : it was formerly believed that prehistoric homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans and neanderthals are the result of interbreeding, but dna testing of a neanderthal's remains indicates that this is not the case. Statement2: The dna of homo sapiens ancestors is significantly different from that of the neanderthal.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3412",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the anthropologist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Any similarity in the dna of two species must be the result of interbreeding.",
            "O": "Premise1: The dna of prehistoric homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans was not significantly more similar to that of neanderthals than is the dna of contemporary humans.",
            "P": "Statement1: Anthropologist : it was formerly believed that prehistoric homo sapiens ancestors of contemporary humans interbred with neanderthals, but dna testing of a neanderthal's remains indicates that this is not the case. Statement2: The dna of contemporary humans is significantly different from that of the neanderthal."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Detective : laser-printer drums are easily damaged, and any nick in a drum will produce a blemish of similar dimensions on each page produced by that printer. Statement2: So in matching a blemish on a page with a nick on a drum, we can reliably trace a suspicious laser-printed document to the precise printer on which it was produced.\nPremise1: The manufacturing process often produces the same nick on several drums.\nPremise2: Drum nicks are usually so small that it requires skill to accurately determine their size and shape.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Detective : laser-printer drums are easily damaged, and any nick in a drum will produce a blemish of similar dimensions on each page produced by that printer. Statement2: So in matching a blemish on a page with a nick on a drum, we can easily trace a suspicious laser-printed document to the precise printer on which it was produced.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_10",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the detective's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Drum nicks are usually so small that it requires skill to accurately determine their size and shape.",
            "O": "Premise1: The manufacturing process often produces the same nick on several drums.",
            "P": "Statement1: Detective : laser-printer drums are easily damaged, and any nick in a drum will produce a blemish of similar dimensions on each page produced by that printer. Statement2: So in matching a blemish on a page with a nick on a drum, we can reliably trace a suspicious laser-printed document to the precise printer on which it was produced."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors nationwide have implemented an aggressive program to convince high school students to select careers requiring college degrees. The government reported that the percentage of last year's high school graduates who went on to college was 15 percent greater than the percentage of those who graduated 10 years ago and did so. Statement2: The counselors concluded from this report that the program had been successful.\nPremise1: Many of last year's graduates who went on to college did so in order to prepare for careers requiring college degrees.\nPremise2: Some of the graduates who went on to college never received guidance from a high school counselor.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors nationwide have implemented an aggressive program to convince high school students to attend college. The government reported that the percentage of last year's high school graduates who went on to college was 15 percent greater than the percentage of those who graduated 10 years ago and did so. Statement3: But the counselors concluded from this report that the program doesn't take much effect.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4205",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The guidance counselors'reasoning depends on which one of the following assumptions about high school graduates?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some of the graduates who went on to college never received guidance from a high school counselor.",
            "O": "Premise1: Many of last year's graduates who went on to college did so in order to prepare for careers requiring college degrees.",
            "P": "Statement1: For the past 13 years, high school guidance counselors nationwide have implemented an aggressive program to convince high school students to select careers requiring college degrees. The government reported that the percentage of last year's high school graduates who went on to college was 15 percent greater than the percentage of those who graduated 10 years ago and did so. Statement2: The counselors concluded from this report that the program had been successful."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Due to the profitable but unlawful practice of selling elephant tusks, elephants have been hunted to near extinction by unlicensed poachers. Statement2: Therefore, an efficient way to prevent the hunting of elephants would be to file down the tusks from time to time, thus removing any incentive for hunting elephants.\nPremise1: Elephants are only valued by poachers for their tusks.\nPremise2: The demand for elephant tusks will decrease as supply dwindles.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Due to the profitable but unlawful practice of selling elephant tusks, elephants have been hunted to near extinction by unlicensed poachers. Statement2: Therefore, an efficient way to decrease the demand for the tusks would be to arrest poachers, thus decreasing the supply.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_728",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The demand for elephant tusks will decrease as supply dwindles.",
            "O": "Premise1: Elephants are only valued by poachers for their tusks.",
            "P": "Statement1: Due to the profitable but unlawful practice of selling elephant tusks, elephants have been hunted to near extinction by unlicensed poachers. Statement2: Therefore, an efficient way to prevent the hunting of elephants would be to file down the tusks from time to time, thus removing any incentive for hunting elephants."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 goblin fern, which requires a thick layer of leaf litter on the forest floor, is disappearing from north american forests. In spots where it has recently vanished, the leaf litter is unusually thin and, unlike those places where this fern still thrives, is teeming with the european earthworm lumbricus rubellus, which eats leaf litter. Statement2: L. rubellus is thus probably responsible for the fern's disappearance.\nPremise1: L. rubellus does not favor habitats where the leaf litter layer is considerably thinner than what is required by goblin ferns.\nPremise2: None of the earthworms that are native to north america eat leaf litter.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The goblin fern, which requires a thick layer of leaf litter on the forest floor, is disappearing from north american forests. In spots where it has recently vanished, the leaf litter is unusually thin and, unlike those places where this fern still thrives, is teeming with the european earthworm lumbricus rubellus and native earthwarms and among of themeats leaf litter. Statement3: L. rubellus is thus probably responsible for the fern's disappearance.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2034",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: None of the earthworms that are native to north america eat leaf litter.",
            "O": "Premise1: L. rubellus does not favor habitats where the leaf litter layer is considerably thinner than what is required by goblin ferns.",
            "P": "Statement1: The goblin fern, which requires a thick layer of leaf litter on the forest floor, is disappearing from north american forests. In spots where it has recently vanished, the leaf litter is unusually thin and, unlike those places where this fern still thrives, is teeming with the european earthworm lumbricus rubellus, which eats leaf litter. Statement2: L. rubellus is thus probably responsible for the fern's disappearance."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Measurements of the motion of the planet uranus seem to show uranus being tugged by a force pulling it away from the sun and the inner planets. Statement2: Neptune and pluto, the two known planets whose orbits are farther from the sun than is the orbit of uranus, do not have enough mass to exert the force that the measurements indicate. Statement3: Therefore, in addition to the known planets, there must be at least one planet in our solar system that we have yet to discover.\nPremise1: There is a belt of comets beyond the orbit of pluto with powerful gravitational pull.\nPremise2: Neither neptune nor pluto is as massive as uranus.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Measurements of the motion of the planet uranus seem to show uranus being tugged by a force pulling it away from the sun and the inner planets. Statement2: Neptune and pluto, the two known planets whose orbits are farther from the sun than is the orbit of uranus. Statement3: Therefore, one of the two planets must tug uranus.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4341",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Neither neptune nor pluto is as massive as uranus.",
            "O": "Premise1: There is a belt of comets beyond the orbit of pluto with powerful gravitational pull.",
            "P": "Statement1: Measurements of the motion of the planet uranus seem to show uranus being tugged by a force pulling it away from the sun and the inner planets. Statement2: Neptune and pluto, the two known planets whose orbits are farther from the sun than is the orbit of uranus, do not have enough mass to exert the force that the measurements indicate. Statement3: Therefore, in addition to the known planets, there must be at least one planet in our solar system that we have yet to discover."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 : historians purport to discover the patterns inherent in the course of events. But historians actually impose, rather than find, such patterns by choosing what to include in and exclude from their historical narratives. Statement2: Thus, properly understood, histories reveal more about the presuppositions underlying different historians'attempts to understand what happened than about what actually happened.\nPremise1: Which pattern a historian imposes upon events is affected by that historian's presuppositions.\nPremise2: Historians have many presuppositions in common with one another.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Critic : historians purport to discover the patterns inherent in the course of events. But historians actually impose, rather than find, such patterns by presupposing to choose what to include in and exclude from their historical narratives. Statement3: Thus, properly understood, histories reveal more about the presuppositions underlying different historians'attempts to understand what happened than about what actually happened, and these patterns are similar.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4580",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The critic's argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Historians have many presuppositions in common with one another.",
            "O": "Premise1: Which pattern a historian imposes upon events is affected by that historian's presuppositions.",
            "P": "Statement1: Critic : historians purport to discover the patterns inherent in the course of events. But historians actually impose, rather than find, such patterns by choosing what to include in and exclude from their historical narratives. Statement2: Thus, properly understood, histories reveal more about the presuppositions underlying different historians'attempts to understand what happened than about what actually happened."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 : laboratory animals have access to ample food, and they get relatively little exercise. Statement2: These factors can skew the results of research using animals, since such studies often rely on the assumption that the animal subjects are healthy. Statement3: For instance, animal studies that purport to show that extreme caloric restriction can extend lifespans take for granted that their subjects were not overfed to begin with.\nPremise1: Laboratory conditions that provide animals with ample food but relatively little exercise can be unhealthy for the animals.\nPremise2: Laboratory animals are healthy if they are fed a carefully restricted diet and get plenty of exercise.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Scientist : laboratory animals have access to restricted food, and they get relatively plenty of exercise. Statement2: These factors can prove the results of research using animals, since such studies often rely on the assumption that the animal subjects are healthy. Statement3: For instance, animal studies that purport to show that extreme caloric restriction can extend lifespans take for granted that their subjects were not overfed to begin with.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_4420",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The scientist's argument requires assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Laboratory animals are healthy if they are fed a carefully restricted diet and get plenty of exercise.",
            "O": "Premise1: Laboratory conditions that provide animals with ample food but relatively little exercise can be unhealthy for the animals.",
            "P": "Statement1: Scientist : laboratory animals have access to ample food, and they get relatively little exercise. Statement2: These factors can skew the results of research using animals, since such studies often rely on the assumption that the animal subjects are healthy. Statement3: For instance, animal studies that purport to show that extreme caloric restriction can extend lifespans take for granted that their subjects were not overfed to begin with."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Cotton grass, which grows only in arctic regions, has been the only summertime source of protein available to caribou. Statement2: Caribou that do not get adequate amounts of protein in the summer are unable to reproduce the following year. Statement3: Rising average temperatures in arctic regions, however, are causing cotton grass to disappear. Statement4: Therefore, if the warming trend continues, caribou are likely to become extinct.\nPremise1: The warming trend in arctic regions will not enable other plants capable of providing protein to caribou to grow there.\nPremise2: Caribou that do not eat enough protein to reproduce do not live as long as caribou that do\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Cotton grass, which grows only in arctic regions, is the only summertime source of protein available to caribou. Statement2:  Statement3: Rising average temperatures in arctic regions, however, are causing cotton grass to disappear. Statement4: Therefore, if the warming trend continues, caribou are likely to live shorter lives.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4179",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Caribou that do not eat enough protein to reproduce do not live as long as caribou that do",
            "O": "Premise1: The warming trend in arctic regions will not enable other plants capable of providing protein to caribou to grow there.",
            "P": "Statement1: Cotton grass, which grows only in arctic regions, has been the only summertime source of protein available to caribou. Statement2: Caribou that do not get adequate amounts of protein in the summer are unable to reproduce the following year. Statement3: Rising average temperatures in arctic regions, however, are causing cotton grass to disappear. Statement4: Therefore, if the warming trend continues, caribou are likely to become extinct."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 six-month public health campaign sought to limit the spread of influenza by encouraging people to take precautions such as washing their hands frequently and avoiding public places when they experience influenza symptoms. Statement2: Since the incidence of influenza was much lower during those months than experts had predicted, the public evidently heeded the campaign.\nPremise1: The incidence of food-borne illnesses, which can be effectively controlled by frequent hand washing, was markedly lower than usual during the six-month period.\nPremise2: There were fewer large public gatherings than usual during the six-month period.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A six-month public health campaign sought to limit the spread of influenza by encouraging people to take precautions such as getting vaccinated and avoiding public gatherings. Statement2: Since the incidence of influenza was much lower during those months than experts had predicted, the public evidently heeded the campaign.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4357",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There were fewer large public gatherings than usual during the six-month period.",
            "O": "Premise1: The incidence of food-borne illnesses, which can be effectively controlled by frequent hand washing, was markedly lower than usual during the six-month period.",
            "P": "Statement1: A six-month public health campaign sought to limit the spread of influenza by encouraging people to take precautions such as washing their hands frequently and avoiding public places when they experience influenza symptoms. Statement2: Since the incidence of influenza was much lower during those months than experts had predicted, the public evidently heeded the campaign."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 first publicly available fantasy football league was launched in 1997, and within three years, every major football media website had launched their own sites. From 2000 until 2015, viewership for the national football league rose by 27 percent, and it is currently the most popular televised sport in the united states. Statement2: Fantasy football heavily contributed to the increased viewership since fantasy players had a vested interest in nearly every game.\nPremise1: Some fantasy players watch national football league games.\nPremise2: The national football league earns a large portion of its revenue from high television ratings.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The first publicly available fantasy football league was launched in 1997, and within three years, every major football media website had launched their own sites. From 2000 until 2015, viewership for the national football league rose by 27 percent, and it is currently the most popular televised sport in the united states. Statement3: Thus, the fantasy players' income has increased a lot.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_40",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Upon which one of the following assumptions does the author's argument rely?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The national football league earns a large portion of its revenue from high television ratings.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some fantasy players watch national football league games.",
            "P": "Statement1: The first publicly available fantasy football league was launched in 1997, and within three years, every major football media website had launched their own sites. From 2000 until 2015, viewership for the national football league rose by 27 percent, and it is currently the most popular televised sport in the united states. Statement2: Fantasy football heavily contributed to the increased viewership since fantasy players had a vested interest in nearly every game."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Archaeologists in michigan have excavated a native american camp near dumaw creek. Statement2: Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. sent3: however, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no european trade goods were found at the site, and european traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.\nPremise1: At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of european trade goods have been found.\nPremise2: Due to trade among native americans, some european trade goods would have reached the area before the european traders themselves did.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Archaeologists in michigan have excavated a native american camp near dumaw creek. Statement2: Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. Statement3: However, the camp probably dates to sooner than 1620, since someeuropean trade goods were found at the site, and european traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2604",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Due to trade among native americans, some european trade goods would have reached the area before the european traders themselves did.",
            "O": "Premise1: At all camps in the region that have been reliably dated to the late 1620's, remains of european trade goods have been found.",
            "P": "Statement1: Archaeologists in michigan have excavated a native american camp near dumaw creek. Statement2: Radiocarbon dating of animal bones found at the site indicates that the camp dates from some time between 1605 and 1755. sent3: however, the camp probably dates to no later than 1630, since no european trade goods were found at the site, and european traders were active in the region from the 1620's onward."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Many people believe that in every group of attorneys, there are only a small number of contemptible ones. Statement2: However, if being antagonistic is a contemptible quality, then all successful attorneys are contemptible. Statement3: Attorneys must be antagonistic in order to serve their clients well. Statement4: People who are overly friendly and always seek to be gracious and affable will never be successful attorneys.\nPremise1: Some overly friendly attorneys, who always seek to be gracious and affable, are successful.\nPremise2: Most attorneys are overly friendly and always seek to be gracious and affable.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Many people believe that in every group of attorneys, there are only a small number of contemptible ones. Statement2: However, if being antagonistic is a contemptible quality, then all successful attorneys are contemptible. Statement3: Attorneys must be antagonistic in order to serve their clients well. Statement4: So only a few of attorneys are overly friendly and always seek to be gracious and affable, and will be successful.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1219",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Assuming that the author's statements are accurate, which one of the following statements cannot be true?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most attorneys are overly friendly and always seek to be gracious and affable.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some overly friendly attorneys, who always seek to be gracious and affable, are successful.",
            "P": "Statement1: Many people believe that in every group of attorneys, there are only a small number of contemptible ones. Statement2: However, if being antagonistic is a contemptible quality, then all successful attorneys are contemptible. Statement3: Attorneys must be antagonistic in order to serve their clients well. Statement4: People who are overly friendly and always seek to be gracious and affable will never be successful attorneys."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Doctor : medication to reduce blood pressure often has unhealthy side effects. Statement2: However, lifestyle changes such as exercising more and avoiding fatty foods reduce blood pressure just as effectively as taking medication does. Statement3: Therefore, it is healthier to rely on these lifestyle changes than on medication to reduce blood pressure.\nPremise1: The side effects, if any, of exercising more and avoiding fatty foods in order to reduce blood pressure are less unhealthy than those of taking medication to reduce blood pressure.\nPremise2: If it is healthier to rely on a lifestyle change than on medication to reduce blood pressure, then that lifestyle change reduces blood pressure at least as effectively as medication does.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Doctor : medication to reduce blood pressure often has unhealthy side effects. Statement2: However, lifestyle changes such as exercising more and avoiding fatty foods reduce blood pressure is healthier than taking medication does. Statement3: Therefore, relying on these lifestyle changes is effective as taking medication.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_276",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption that the doctor's argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If it is healthier to rely on a lifestyle change than on medication to reduce blood pressure, then that lifestyle change reduces blood pressure at least as effectively as medication does.",
            "O": "Premise1: The side effects, if any, of exercising more and avoiding fatty foods in order to reduce blood pressure are less unhealthy than those of taking medication to reduce blood pressure.",
            "P": "Statement1: Doctor : medication to reduce blood pressure often has unhealthy side effects. Statement2: However, lifestyle changes such as exercising more and avoiding fatty foods reduce blood pressure just as effectively as taking medication does. Statement3: Therefore, it is healthier to rely on these lifestyle changes than on medication to reduce blood pressure."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 certain experimental fungicide causes no harm to garden plants, though only if it is diluted at least to ten parts water to one part fungicide. Statement2: Moreover, this fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate it completely from rose plants. Statement3: Thus this fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants that involves no risk of harming the plants.\nPremise1: The effectiveness of the fungicide does not depend on its being more concentrated than one part in ten parts of water.\nPremise2: Powdery mildew is the only fungal infection that affects rose plants.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A certain experimental fungicide causes no harm to garden plants, though only if it is diluted at least to ten parts water to one part fungicide and doesn't affect the effectiveness. Statement2: Moreover, this fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate it completely from rose plants. Statement3: Thus this fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating fungal infection from rose plants that involves no risk of harming the plants.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4421",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Powdery mildew is the only fungal infection that affects rose plants.",
            "O": "Premise1: The effectiveness of the fungicide does not depend on its being more concentrated than one part in ten parts of water.",
            "P": "Statement1: A certain experimental fungicide causes no harm to garden plants, though only if it is diluted at least to ten parts water to one part fungicide. Statement2: Moreover, this fungicide is known to be so effective against powdery mildew that it has the capacity to eliminate it completely from rose plants. Statement3: Thus this fungicide, as long as it is sufficiently diluted, provides a means of eliminating powdery mildew from rose plants that involves no risk of harming the plants."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 ability of mammals to control their internal body temperatures is a factor in the development of their brains and intelligence. Statement2: This can be seen from the following facts : the brain is a chemical machine, all chemical reactions are temperature dependent, and any organism that can control its body temperature can assure that these reactions occur at the proper temperatures.\nPremise1: The development of intelligence in mammals is not independent of the chemical reactions in their brains taking place at the proper temperatures.\nPremise2: The brain cannot support intelligence if the chemical reactions within it are subject to uncontrolled temperatures.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The ability of mammals to control their internal body temperatures is a factor in the support of their brains and intelligence. Statement2: This can be seen from the following facts : the brain is a chemical machine, all chemical reactions are temperature dependent, and any organism that can control its body temperature can assure that these reactions occur at the proper temperatures.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3215",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The brain cannot support intelligence if the chemical reactions within it are subject to uncontrolled temperatures.",
            "O": "Premise1: The development of intelligence in mammals is not independent of the chemical reactions in their brains taking place at the proper temperatures.",
            "P": "Statement1: The ability of mammals to control their internal body temperatures is a factor in the development of their brains and intelligence. Statement2: This can be seen from the following facts : the brain is a chemical machine, all chemical reactions are temperature dependent, and any organism that can control its body temperature can assure that these reactions occur at the proper temperatures."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. Statement2: To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.\nPremise1: When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.\nPremise2: Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. Statement2: To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, those bussinesses that may have insufficient earnings can borrow money.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_204",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.",
            "O": "Premise1: When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.",
            "P": "Statement1: Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. Statement2: To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: There is a difference between beauty and truth. Statement2: After all, if there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well, since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful. But many of the most realistic artworks are not among the best.\nPremise1: The most beautiful artworks are the best artworks.\nPremise2: If an artwork contains nonrealistic elements, then it is not at all truthful.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: There is a difference between beauty and truth. Statement2: After all, if there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the beautiful as well, since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful. But beautiful artworks have nonrealistic elements.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_428",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If an artwork contains nonrealistic elements, then it is not at all truthful.",
            "O": "Premise1: The most beautiful artworks are the best artworks.",
            "P": "Statement1: There is a difference between beauty and truth. Statement2: After all, if there were no difference, then the most realistic pieces of art would be the best as well, since the most realistic pieces are the most truthful. But many of the most realistic artworks are not among the best."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. Statement2: However, any future recessions in vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. Statement3: This is because vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.\nPremise1: During recent periods when the vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees\nPremise2: During the last economic recession in vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. Statement2: And the last recession in vargonia reducedthe availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. Statement3: This is because vargonia introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools shouldn't increase teacher jobs during the economic recession.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2381",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: During the last economic recession in vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded",
            "O": "Premise1: During recent periods when the vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees",
            "P": "Statement1: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. Statement2: However, any future recessions in vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. Statement3: This is because vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: A primate jawbone found in namibia in southern africa has been identified by anthropologists as that of an ape that lived between 10 million and 15 million years ago. Researchers generally agree that such ancient primates lived only in dense forests. Statement2: Consequently, the dry, treeless expanses now dominating the landscape in and around namibia must have replaced an earlier, heavily forested terrain.\nPremise1: The ape whose jawbone was found lived in or near the area that is now namibia.\nPremise2: There were no apes living in the area that is now namibia prior to 15 million years ago.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A primate jawbone found in namibia in southern africa has been identified by anthropologists as that of an ape that lived between 10 million and 15 million years ago. Researchers generally agree that such ancient primates lived only in dense forests. Statement3: Consequently, in the heavily forested expanses in that period of dominating the landscape in and around namibia, the ape may migrate from other place.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_3013",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument assumes which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There were no apes living in the area that is now namibia prior to 15 million years ago.",
            "O": "Premise1: The ape whose jawbone was found lived in or near the area that is now namibia.",
            "P": "Statement1: A primate jawbone found in namibia in southern africa has been identified by anthropologists as that of an ape that lived between 10 million and 15 million years ago. Researchers generally agree that such ancient primates lived only in dense forests. Statement2: Consequently, the dry, treeless expanses now dominating the landscape in and around namibia must have replaced an earlier, heavily forested terrain."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Most students are bored by history courses as they are usually taught, primarily because a large amount of time is spent teaching dates and statistics. Statement2: The best way to teach history, therefore, is to spend most class time recounting the lives of historical figures and very little on dates and statistics.\nPremise1: It is possible to recount the lives of historical figures without referring to dates and statistics.\nPremise2: It is compatible with the attainable goals of teaching history to spend most class time recounting the lives of historical figures.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Most students are bored by history courses as they are usually taught, primarily because a large amount of time is spent teaching dates and statistics. Statement2: The best way to teach history, therefore, is to spend some class time recounting the lives of historical figures, because the teaching goals can't be achieved if the time is longer and very little on dates and statistics.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3663",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: It is compatible with the attainable goals of teaching history to spend most class time recounting the lives of historical figures.",
            "O": "Premise1: It is possible to recount the lives of historical figures without referring to dates and statistics.",
            "P": "Statement1: Most students are bored by history courses as they are usually taught, primarily because a large amount of time is spent teaching dates and statistics. Statement2: The best way to teach history, therefore, is to spend most class time recounting the lives of historical figures and very little on dates and statistics."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: An economist has argued that consumers often benefit when government permits a corporation to obtain a monopoly. Statement2: Without competition, a corporation can raise prices without spending nearly as much on advertising. Statement3: The corporation can then invest the extra money in expensive research or industrial infrastructure that it could not otherwise afford, passing the fruits of these investments on to consumers.\nPremise1: If a corporation obtains a monopoly, the disadvantage to consumers of any higher prices will be outweighed by the advantages from extra investments in expensive research or industrial infrastructure made by that corporation.\nPremise2: The benefits to consumers are typically greater if a corporation invests in expensive research or industrial infrastructure than if that corporation spends the same amount of money in any other way.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: An economist has argued that consumers often benefit most when government permits a corporation to obtain a monopoly. Statement2: Because without competition, a corporation need not spend nearly as much on advertising. Statement3: The corporation can then invest the extra money in expensive research or industrial infrastructure that it could not otherwise afford, passing the fruits of these investments on to consumers.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3562",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the economist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The benefits to consumers are typically greater if a corporation invests in expensive research or industrial infrastructure than if that corporation spends the same amount of money in any other way.",
            "O": "Premise1: If a corporation obtains a monopoly, the disadvantage to consumers of any higher prices will be outweighed by the advantages from extra investments in expensive research or industrial infrastructure made by that corporation.",
            "P": "Statement1: An economist has argued that consumers often benefit when government permits a corporation to obtain a monopoly. Statement2: Without competition, a corporation can raise prices without spending nearly as much on advertising. Statement3: The corporation can then invest the extra money in expensive research or industrial infrastructure that it could not otherwise afford, passing the fruits of these investments on to consumers."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Any health care plan that does not cover comprehensive annual checkups is risking the lives of its members, who are unlikely to obtain care that is not covered by their health care plans, and who may have conditions that, if not detected early, are more likely to become fatal.\nPremise1: Many potentially lethal conditions are likely to be detected during an annual checkup.\nPremise2: Health care plans cannot save lives unless they also cover medical procedures that treat any potentially fatal conditions that are detected.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Any health care plan that does not cover medical procedures that treat any potentially fatal conditions that are detected is risking the lives of its members, who are unlikely to obtain care that is not covered by their health care plans, and who may have conditions that, if not detected early, are more likely to become fatal.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3226",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Health care plans cannot save lives unless they also cover medical procedures that treat any potentially fatal conditions that are detected.",
            "O": "Premise1: Many potentially lethal conditions are likely to be detected during an annual checkup.",
            "P": "Statement1: Any health care plan that does not cover comprehensive annual checkups is risking the lives of its members, who are unlikely to obtain care that is not covered by their health care plans, and who may have conditions that, if not detected early, are more likely to become fatal."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 preparation for a large-scale tree-planting project, thomasville has recorded the location, species, and condition of every tree in its downtown area. The results will be compared with results of the last such tree census, taken 20 years ago. Statement2: Planting trees primarily from the species that turns out to have the best record of survival will assure downtown thomasville of an abundant tree population 20 years from now.\nPremise1: A city with a high proportion of any one species of trees can have its tree population devastated by one outbreak of a disease.\nPremise2: Thomasville has reliable records to show which trees in existence 20 years ago were cut down to permit new construction downtown.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In preparation for a large-scale tree-planting project, thomasville has recorded the location, species ,disease resistance,and condition of every tree in its downtown area. The results will be compared with results of the last such tree census, taken 20 years ago. Statement3: Planting trees primarily from the species that turns out to have the best record of survival will assure downtown thomasville of an abundant tree population 20 years from now.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_526",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the claim that the tree-planting proposal will assure an abundant tree population?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Thomasville has reliable records to show which trees in existence 20 years ago were cut down to permit new construction downtown.",
            "O": "Premise1: A city with a high proportion of any one species of trees can have its tree population devastated by one outbreak of a disease.",
            "P": "Statement1: In preparation for a large-scale tree-planting project, thomasville has recorded the location, species, and condition of every tree in its downtown area. The results will be compared with results of the last such tree census, taken 20 years ago. Statement2: Planting trees primarily from the species that turns out to have the best record of survival will assure downtown thomasville of an abundant tree population 20 years from now."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before the onset of mental disorders can mitigate factors identified as major contributors to them. But a much more comprehensive research program is needed to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures. Statement2: Thus, in order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research.\nPremise1: Reducing known risk factors for mental disorders is relatively inexpensive compared to the long-term treatment required.\nPremise2: Most minor mental disorders are more expensive to treat than other minor health problems.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Limited research indicates that minor mental disorders can change into other minor health problems through treatment. But a much more comprehensive research program is needed to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures. Statement3: Thus, in order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people with minor mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3411",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most minor mental disorders are more expensive to treat than other minor health problems.",
            "O": "Premise1: Reducing known risk factors for mental disorders is relatively inexpensive compared to the long-term treatment required.",
            "P": "Statement1: Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before the onset of mental disorders can mitigate factors identified as major contributors to them. But a much more comprehensive research program is needed to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures. Statement2: Thus, in order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Grammarians have for years condemned as ungrammatical the english phrase\" between you and i\" , insisting that the correct phrasing is\" between you and me, \" with the objective case after a preposition. Such condemnations, however, are obviously unfounded, because shakespeare himself, in the merchant of venice, wrote, \" all debts are cleared between you and i.\"\nPremise1: In his plays, shakespeare intentionally had some of his characters use phrases he considered ungrammatical.\nPremise2: The more modern an english word or phrase, the less likely that modern grammarians will consider it acceptable for formal usage.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Grammarians have for years condemned as informal the english phrase\" between you and i\" , insisting that the formal phrasing is\" between you and me, \" with the objective case after a preposition. Because\" between you and me\" is more modern for people",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3841",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The more modern an english word or phrase, the less likely that modern grammarians will consider it acceptable for formal usage.",
            "O": "Premise1: In his plays, shakespeare intentionally had some of his characters use phrases he considered ungrammatical.",
            "P": "Statement1: Grammarians have for years condemned as ungrammatical the english phrase\" between you and i\" , insisting that the correct phrasing is\" between you and me, \" with the objective case after a preposition. Such condemnations, however, are obviously unfounded, because shakespeare himself, in the merchant of venice, wrote, \" all debts are cleared between you and i.\""
        }
    },
    {
        "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 contemplating major purchases, businesses often consider only whether there is enough money left from monthly revenues after paying monthly expenses to cover the cost of the purchase. But many expenses do not occur monthly ; taking into account only monthly expenses can cause a business to overexpand. Statement2: So the use of a cash-flow statement is critical for all businesses.\nPremise1: A cash-flow statement is the only way to track both monthly expenses and expenses that are not monthly.\nPremise2: Only a cash-flow statement can accurately document all monthly expenses.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In contemplating major purchases, businesses often consider only whether there is enough money left from monthly revenues after paying monthly expenses to cover the cost of the purchase. But there are many expenses every month ; taking into account these expenses incorrectly can cause a business to overexpand. Statement3: So the use of a cash-flow statement is critical for all businesses.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2464",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Only a cash-flow statement can accurately document all monthly expenses.",
            "O": "Premise1: A cash-flow statement is the only way to track both monthly expenses and expenses that are not monthly.",
            "P": "Statement1: In contemplating major purchases, businesses often consider only whether there is enough money left from monthly revenues after paying monthly expenses to cover the cost of the purchase. But many expenses do not occur monthly ; taking into account only monthly expenses can cause a business to overexpand. Statement2: So the use of a cash-flow statement is critical for all businesses."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to satisfy domestic demand. Statement2: Teruvia's total rice acreage will not be expanded in the foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Statement3: Teruvia's population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come. Statement4: Clearly, therefore, teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.\nPremise1: No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in teruvia.\nPremise2: There are no populated regions in teruvia in which the population will not increase.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to satisfy domestic demand. Statement2: Teruvia's total rice acreage will not be expanded in the foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Statement3: Per capita demand for rice won't decrease in teruvia. Statement4: Clearly, however, teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2164",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There are no populated regions in teruvia in which the population will not increase.",
            "O": "Premise1: No pronounced trend of decreasing per capita demand for rice is imminent in teruvia.",
            "P": "Statement1: In teruvia, the quantity of rice produced per year is currently just large enough to satisfy domestic demand. Statement2: Teruvia's total rice acreage will not be expanded in the foreseeable future, nor will rice yields per acre increase appreciably. Statement3: Teruvia's population, however, will be increasing significantly for years to come. Statement4: Clearly, therefore, teruvia will soon have to begin importing rice."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Most respondents to a magazine survey who had recently listened to a taped reading of a certain best-selling novel said that they had enjoyed the novel, while most respondents who had recently read the novel themselves said they had not enjoyed it. Statement2: These survey results support the contention that a person who listens to a taped reading of a novel is more likely to enjoy the novel than a person who reads it is.\nPremise1: The novel in question, unlike most novels, included dialogue in many different dialects that are more understandable when heard than when read.\nPremise2: When people are asked their opinion of a best- selling novel that they have read or listened to on tape, they are more likely to say that they enjoyed the novel than that they did not enjoy it.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In a magazine survey, a certain best-selling novel included dialogue in many different dialects that are more incomprehensible than other novels.. Statement2: These surveyresults may support the contention that a most respondents who had listened to or read this novel did not enjoy it.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4446",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: When people are asked their opinion of a best- selling novel that they have read or listened to on tape, they are more likely to say that they enjoyed the novel than that they did not enjoy it.",
            "O": "Premise1: The novel in question, unlike most novels, included dialogue in many different dialects that are more understandable when heard than when read.",
            "P": "Statement1: Most respondents to a magazine survey who had recently listened to a taped reading of a certain best-selling novel said that they had enjoyed the novel, while most respondents who had recently read the novel themselves said they had not enjoyed it. Statement2: These survey results support the contention that a person who listens to a taped reading of a novel is more likely to enjoy the novel than a person who reads it is."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 1963, a young macaque monkey was observed venturing into a hot spring to retrieve food which had fallen in. Soon, other macaques began to enter the spring, and over a few years this behavior was adopted by the entire troop. Prior to 1963, no macaques had ever been observed in the hot spring ; by 1990, the troop was regularly spending time there during the winters. Statement2: Thus, these macaques are able to adopt and pass on new patterns of social behavior, and are not complete captives of their genetic heritage.\nPremise1: New patterns of behavior that emerge in macaque populations over the course of a few years or decades are not necessarily genetically predetermined.\nPremise2: The social behaviors of macaques are completely independent of their genetic heritage.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In 1963, a young macaque monkey was observed venturing into a hot spring to retrieve food which had fallen in. Soon, other macaques began to enter the spring, and over a few years this behavior was adopted by the entire troop. Prior to 1963, no macaques had ever been observed in the hot spring ; by 1990, the troop was regularly spending time there during the winters. Statement4: Thus, these macaques' new patterns of social behavior must be determined by others.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1754",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The social behaviors of macaques are completely independent of their genetic heritage.",
            "O": "Premise1: New patterns of behavior that emerge in macaque populations over the course of a few years or decades are not necessarily genetically predetermined.",
            "P": "Statement1: In 1963, a young macaque monkey was observed venturing into a hot spring to retrieve food which had fallen in. Soon, other macaques began to enter the spring, and over a few years this behavior was adopted by the entire troop. Prior to 1963, no macaques had ever been observed in the hot spring ; by 1990, the troop was regularly spending time there during the winters. Statement2: Thus, these macaques are able to adopt and pass on new patterns of social behavior, and are not complete captives of their genetic heritage."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 company that manufactures plastic products from recyclable plastic is, surprisingly, unconcerned that economic conditions may worsen, despite analysts'belief that consumers would then consider ecofriendly plastic products an expensive luxury. Statement2: But the company reasons that it will be able to lower its prices because, in a weakenedeconomy, other ecofriendly plastic manufacturers are likely to fail. Statement3: Demand among manufacturers for recyclable plastics as raw materials would then plummet, creating an oversupply of such materials, making them less expensive for the manufacturer to purchase and thus lowering the company's costs.\nPremise1: Consumers would likely soon learn of the oversupply of recyclable plastics and cease recycling them, significantly raising manufacturers' raw-material costs.\nPremise2: Retailers, including retailers that cater to consumers seeking certain types of ecofriendly products, may lose some business if economic conditions worsen.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A company that manufactures plastic products from recyclable plastic is, surprisingly, unconcerned that economic conditions may worsen, despite analysts'belief that consumers would then consider ecofriendly plastic products an expensive luxury. Statement2: But the company reasons that it will be able to attract more customersbecause, in a weakenedeconomy, other ecofriendly plastic manufacturers are likely to fail. Statement3: Some retailers that demand ecofriendly plastic products would seek cooperations with the company.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1769",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most weakens the company's reasoning?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Retailers, including retailers that cater to consumers seeking certain types of ecofriendly products, may lose some business if economic conditions worsen.",
            "O": "Premise1: Consumers would likely soon learn of the oversupply of recyclable plastics and cease recycling them, significantly raising manufacturers' raw-material costs.",
            "P": "Statement1: A company that manufactures plastic products from recyclable plastic is, surprisingly, unconcerned that economic conditions may worsen, despite analysts'belief that consumers would then consider ecofriendly plastic products an expensive luxury. Statement2: But the company reasons that it will be able to lower its prices because, in a weakenedeconomy, other ecofriendly plastic manufacturers are likely to fail. Statement3: Demand among manufacturers for recyclable plastics as raw materials would then plummet, creating an oversupply of such materials, making them less expensive for the manufacturer to purchase and thus lowering the company's costs."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 effort involved in lying produces measurable physiological reactions such as a speedup of the heartbeat. Statement2: Since lying is accompanied by physiological reactions, lie-detector tests that can detect these reactions are a sure way of determining when someone is lying.\nPremise1: For people who are not lying, the tension of taking a lie-detector test can produce physiological reactions identical to the ones that accompany the act of lying.\nPremise2: People are often unaware that they are having physiological reactions of the sort measured by lie-detector tests.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The effort involved in lying produces measurable physiological reactions such as a speedup of the heartbeat. Statement2: Since lying is accompanied by physiological reactions and people can control their physiological response by becoming aware of it,lie-detector tests that can detect these reactions are not a sure way of determining when someone is lying.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2817",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People are often unaware that they are having physiological reactions of the sort measured by lie-detector tests.",
            "O": "Premise1: For people who are not lying, the tension of taking a lie-detector test can produce physiological reactions identical to the ones that accompany the act of lying.",
            "P": "Statement1: The effort involved in lying produces measurable physiological reactions such as a speedup of the heartbeat. Statement2: Since lying is accompanied by physiological reactions, lie-detector tests that can detect these reactions are a sure way of determining when someone is lying."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages one's sense of smell. Statement2: In one important study, 100 workers from sulfur-emitting factories and a control group of 100 workers from other occupations were asked to identify a variety of chemically reproduced scents, including those of foods, spices, and flowers. On average, the factory workers successfully identified 10 percent of the scents compared to 50 percent for the control group.\nPremise1: The chemicals used in the study closely but not perfectly reproduced the corresponding natural scents.\nPremise2: Every sulfur-emitting factory with workers participating in the study also emits other noxious fumes.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Prolonged work in sulfur-emitting factories permanently damages one's sense of smell. Statement2: In one important study, 100 workers from sulfur-emitting factories and a control group of 100 workers from other occupations were asked to identify a variety of chemically reproduced scents, including those of foods, spices, and flowers. On average, the factory workers successfully identified 10 percent of the scents compared to 50 percent for the control group.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3767",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Every sulfur-emitting factory with workers participating in the study also emits other noxious fumes.",
            "O": "Premise1: The chemicals used in the study closely but not perfectly reproduced the corresponding natural scents.",
            "P": "Statement1: Prolonged exposure to sulfur fumes permanently damages one's sense of smell. Statement2: In one important study, 100 workers from sulfur-emitting factories and a control group of 100 workers from other occupations were asked to identify a variety of chemically reproduced scents, including those of foods, spices, and flowers. On average, the factory workers successfully identified 10 percent of the scents compared to 50 percent for the control group."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: An article claims that many medical patients have an instinctual ability to predict sudden changes in their medical status. Statement2: But the evidence given is anecdotal and should not be trusted. Statement3: The case is analogous to empirically disproven reports that babies are born in disproportionately high numbers during full moons. Once that rumor became popular, maternity room staff were more likely to remember busy nights with full moons than busy nights without them.\nPremise1: Patients' predictions of sudden changes in their medical status are less likely to be remembered by medical staff if no such change actually occurs\nPremise2: Babies are less likely to be born during a night with a full moon than during a night without a full moon\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: An article claims that many medical patients have an instinctual ability to predict sudden changes in their medical status. Statement2: But the evidence given is anecdotal and the predictions are less likely to be remembered by medical staff if no such change actually occurs. Statement3: The case is analogous to empirically disproven reports about the probability of babies being born during full moons. Once that rumor became popular, maternity room staff were less likely to remember busy nights with full moons than busy nights without them.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4429",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument requires the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Babies are less likely to be born during a night with a full moon than during a night without a full moon",
            "O": "Premise1: Patients' predictions of sudden changes in their medical status are less likely to be remembered by medical staff if no such change actually occurs",
            "P": "Statement1: An article claims that many medical patients have an instinctual ability to predict sudden changes in their medical status. Statement2: But the evidence given is anecdotal and should not be trusted. Statement3: The case is analogous to empirically disproven reports that babies are born in disproportionately high numbers during full moons. Once that rumor became popular, maternity room staff were more likely to remember busy nights with full moons than busy nights without them."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Incumbent politicians tend to win elections in times of economic prosperity and lose during recessions. Statement2: Knowing this, incumbents have an incentive to boost the economy temporarily by cutting taxes and raising government spending several months before an election. Statement3: Thus, in democratic nations, upcoming elections may be a major cause of short-term economic expansions.\nPremise1: Politicians in democratic nations sometimes cut taxes and raise government spending in the months following an election.\nPremise2: In democratic nations, short-term economic expansions more often start within the six months preceding a national election than within the six months following one.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Incumbent politicians tend to win elections in times of economic prosperity and lose during recessions. Statement2: Knowing this, incumbents have an incentive to boost the economy temporarily by cutting taxes and raising government spending several months before or after an election. Statement3: Thus, in democratic nations, upcoming elections may be a major cause of short-term economic expansions.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2942",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, strengthens the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: In democratic nations, short-term economic expansions more often start within the six months preceding a national election than within the six months following one.",
            "O": "Premise1: Politicians in democratic nations sometimes cut taxes and raise government spending in the months following an election.",
            "P": "Statement1: Incumbent politicians tend to win elections in times of economic prosperity and lose during recessions. Statement2: Knowing this, incumbents have an incentive to boost the economy temporarily by cutting taxes and raising government spending several months before an election. Statement3: Thus, in democratic nations, upcoming elections may be a major cause of short-term economic expansions."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Before 1986 physicists believed they could describe the universe in terms of four universal forces. Statement2: Experiments then suggested, however, a fifth universal force of mutual repulsion between particles of matter. Statement3: This fifth force would explain the occurrence in the experiments of a smaller measurement of the gravitational attraction between bodies than the established theory predicted.\nPremise1: No previously established scientific results are incompatible with the notion of a fifth universal force.\nPremise2: The extremely sophisticated equipment used for the experiments was not available to physicists before the 1970s.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Before 1970 physicists believed they could describe the universe in terms of four universal forces. Statement2: Experiments after 1970 then suggested, however, a fifth universal force of mutual repulsion between particles of matter. Statement3: This fifth force would explain the occurrence in the experiments of a smaller measurement of the gravitational attraction between bodies than the established theory predicted.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_703",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument that there is a fifth universal force?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The extremely sophisticated equipment used for the experiments was not available to physicists before the 1970s.",
            "O": "Premise1: No previously established scientific results are incompatible with the notion of a fifth universal force.",
            "P": "Statement1: Before 1986 physicists believed they could describe the universe in terms of four universal forces. Statement2: Experiments then suggested, however, a fifth universal force of mutual repulsion between particles of matter. Statement3: This fifth force would explain the occurrence in the experiments of a smaller measurement of the gravitational attraction between bodies than the established theory predicted."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Chemist : the molecules of a certain weed-killer are always present in two forms, one the mirror image of the other. Statement2: One form of the molecule kills weeds, while the other has no effect on them. As a result, the effectiveness of the weed-killer in a given situation is heavily influenced by which of the two forms is more concentrated in the soil, which in turn varies widely because local soil conditions will usually favor the breakdown of one form or the other. Statement3: Thus, much of the data on the effects of this weed-killer are probably misleading.\nPremise1: Almost all of the data on the effects of the weed-killer are drawn from laboratory studies in which both forms of the weed-killer's molecules are equally concentrated in the soil and equally likely to break down in that soil.\nPremise2: Data on the weed-killer's effects that rely solely on the examination of the effects of only one of the two forms of the weed-killer's molecules will almost certainly be misleading.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Chemist : the molecules of a certain weed-killer are always present in two forms, one the mirror image of the other. Statement2: One form of the molecule kills weeds, while the other has no effect on them. As a result, the effectiveness of the weed-killer in a given situation is heavily influenced by which of the two forms is more concentrated in the soil, which in turn varies widely because local soil conditions will usually favor the breakdown of one form or the other. Statement4: Thus, all of the data on the effects of this weed-killer must consider both the two forms.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_511",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the chemist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Data on the weed-killer's effects that rely solely on the examination of the effects of only one of the two forms of the weed-killer's molecules will almost certainly be misleading.",
            "O": "Premise1: Almost all of the data on the effects of the weed-killer are drawn from laboratory studies in which both forms of the weed-killer's molecules are equally concentrated in the soil and equally likely to break down in that soil.",
            "P": "Statement1: Chemist : the molecules of a certain weed-killer are always present in two forms, one the mirror image of the other. Statement2: One form of the molecule kills weeds, while the other has no effect on them. As a result, the effectiveness of the weed-killer in a given situation is heavily influenced by which of the two forms is more concentrated in the soil, which in turn varies widely because local soil conditions will usually favor the breakdown of one form or the other. Statement3: Thus, much of the data on the effects of this weed-killer are probably misleading."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Statement2: Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. Statement3: An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.\nPremise1: Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.\nPremise2: When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Statement2: However, reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive. Statement3: The cases of traffic violations will increase.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3598",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?",
            "Om": "Premise2: When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.",
            "O": "Premise1: Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law.",
            "P": "Statement1: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Statement2: Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. Statement3: An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Today's farmers plant only a handful of different strains of a given crop. Statement2: Crops lack the diversity that they had only a few generations ago. Statement3: Hence, a disease that strikes only a few strains of crops, and that would have had only minor impact on the food supply in the past, would devastate it today.\nPremise1: Affected crops can quickly be replaced from seed banks that store many strains of those crops.\nPremise2: Humans today have more variety in their diets than in the past, but still rely heavily on cereal crops like rice and wheat.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Today's farmers plant many different strains of a given crop. Statement2: Crops had the diversity that they hadn't only a few generations ago. Statement3: Hence, traditional cereal crops like rice and wheat are not important today.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2292",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Humans today have more variety in their diets than in the past, but still rely heavily on cereal crops like rice and wheat.",
            "O": "Premise1: Affected crops can quickly be replaced from seed banks that store many strains of those crops.",
            "P": "Statement1: Today's farmers plant only a handful of different strains of a given crop. Statement2: Crops lack the diversity that they had only a few generations ago. Statement3: Hence, a disease that strikes only a few strains of crops, and that would have had only minor impact on the food supply in the past, would devastate it today."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 the nation of partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks-those with three trailers-had less than a third of the accident rate of single-and double-trailer trucks. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, one way for partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.\nPremise1: Partorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.\nPremise2: No matter what changes partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep some smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In the nation of partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. Statement3: Clearly, therefore, one way for partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to permit large trucks to run on all smaller roads.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_631",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: No matter what changes partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep some smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks.",
            "O": "Premise1: Partorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.",
            "P": "Statement1: In the nation of partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks-those with three trailers-had less than a third of the accident rate of single-and double-trailer trucks. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, one way for partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Recently apexco has begun drilling off the coast of mycondia. Statement2: In this time, the number of animals that end up on the beach, coated in oil and other industrial by-products, has increased dramatically. Statement3: Nonetheless, no peterson 's loggerhead turtles, a tortoise common in the waters off the coast of mycondia, have washed upon shore. Statement4: Apexco 's public relations claim that while some of the by-products are clearly harmful to aquatic life, the lack of peterson 's loggerhead turtles that are washed ashore suggest that not all the aquatic life there is adversely affected.\nPremise1: The peterson's loggerhead turtle has never been seen washed upon the shores of mycondia.\nPremise2: There have been no reports of beached cephalopods, which are common in the waters of the coast of mycondia.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Recently apexco has begun drilling off the coast of mycondia. Statement2: In this time, the number of animals that end up on the beach, coated in oil and other industrial by-products, has increased dramatically. Statement3: Nonetheless, no cephalopods, which are common in the waters off the coast of mycondia, have washed upon shore. Statement4: Apexco 's public relations claim that while some of the by-products are clearly harmful to aquatic life, the lack of cephalopodsthat are washed ashore suggest that not all the aquatic life there is adversely affected.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4094",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument employed by apexco's public relations firm?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There have been no reports of beached cephalopods, which are common in the waters of the coast of mycondia.",
            "O": "Premise1: The peterson's loggerhead turtle has never been seen washed upon the shores of mycondia.",
            "P": "Statement1: Recently apexco has begun drilling off the coast of mycondia. Statement2: In this time, the number of animals that end up on the beach, coated in oil and other industrial by-products, has increased dramatically. Statement3: Nonetheless, no peterson 's loggerhead turtles, a tortoise common in the waters off the coast of mycondia, have washed upon shore. Statement4: Apexco 's public relations claim that while some of the by-products are clearly harmful to aquatic life, the lack of peterson 's loggerhead turtles that are washed ashore suggest that not all the aquatic life there is adversely affected."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Standard archaeological techniques make it possible to determine the age of anything containing vegetable matter, but only if the object is free of minerals containing carbon. Statement2: Prehistoric artists painted on limestone with pigments composed of vegetable matter, but it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone, a mineral containing carbon, with the paint. Statement3: Therefore, it is not possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings on limestone using standard archaeological techniques.\nPremise1: Laboratory procedures exist that can remove all the limestone from a sample of prehistoric paint on limestone.\nPremise2: The age of the limestone itself can be determined from samples that contain no vegetable-based paint.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Standard archaeological techniques make it possible to determine the age of anything containing vegetable matter, and the age of carbon-bearing minerals. Statement2: Prehistoric artists painted on limestone with pigments composed of vegetable matter, so it is possible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone, a mineral containing carbon, with the paint. Statement3: Therefore, it is only possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings and the limestone using standard archaeological techniques.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4308",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The age of the limestone itself can be determined from samples that contain no vegetable-based paint.",
            "O": "Premise1: Laboratory procedures exist that can remove all the limestone from a sample of prehistoric paint on limestone.",
            "P": "Statement1: Standard archaeological techniques make it possible to determine the age of anything containing vegetable matter, but only if the object is free of minerals containing carbon. Statement2: Prehistoric artists painted on limestone with pigments composed of vegetable matter, but it is impossible to collect samples of this prehistoric paint without removing limestone, a mineral containing carbon, with the paint. Statement3: Therefore, it is not possible to determine the age of prehistoric paintings on limestone using standard archaeological techniques."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Detective : because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for xyz corporation as either an accountant or an actuary. But an accountant would probably not make the kind of mistakes in ledger entries that led to the discovery of the embezzlement. Statement2: Thus it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries.\nPremise1: An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that xyz corporation was vulnerable to embezzlement.\nPremise2: The actuaries' activities while working for xyz corporation were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of the accountants.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Detective : because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for xyz corporation as either an accountant or an actuary. But an accountant is freer in the company. Statement3: Thus it is likely that the embezzler is one of the accountants.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1842",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following weakens the detective's argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: The actuaries' activities while working for xyz corporation were more closely scrutinized by supervisors than were the activities of the accountants.",
            "O": "Premise1: An independent report released before the crime took place concluded that xyz corporation was vulnerable to embezzlement.",
            "P": "Statement1: Detective : because the embezzler must have had specialized knowledge and access to internal financial records, we can presume that the embezzler worked for xyz corporation as either an accountant or an actuary. But an accountant would probably not make the kind of mistakes in ledger entries that led to the discovery of the embezzlement. Statement2: Thus it is likely that the embezzler is one of the actuaries."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 the ancient fossils of a primitive land mammal were unearthed in new zealand, they provided the first concrete evidence that the island country had once had indigenous land mammals. Until that discovery, new zealand had no known native land mammals. Statement2: The discovery thus falsifies the theory that new zealand's rich and varied native bird population owes its existence to the lack of competition from mammals.\nPremise1: The recently discovered land mammal became extinct long before the native bird population was established.\nPremise2: The unearthed land mammal is only one of several ancient land mammals that were indigenous to new zealand.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: When the ancient fossils of a primitive land mammal were unearthed in new zealand, they provided a concrete evidence that the island country had otherindigenous land mammals. Until that discovery, new zealand had several known native land mammals. Statement3: The discovery thus proved the theory that all ancient land mammals had been discovered in new zealand.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2745",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The unearthed land mammal is only one of several ancient land mammals that were indigenous to new zealand.",
            "O": "Premise1: The recently discovered land mammal became extinct long before the native bird population was established.",
            "P": "Statement1: When the ancient fossils of a primitive land mammal were unearthed in new zealand, they provided the first concrete evidence that the island country had once had indigenous land mammals. Until that discovery, new zealand had no known native land mammals. Statement2: The discovery thus falsifies the theory that new zealand's rich and varied native bird population owes its existence to the lack of competition from mammals."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: 1990 editorial : sent2: local pay phone calls have cost a quarter apiece ever since the 1970s, when a soft drink from a vending machine cost about the same. Statement1: The price of a soft drink has more than doubled since, so phone companies should be allowed to raise the price of pay phone calls too.\nPremise1: Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.\nPremise2: Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: 1990 editorial : Statement2: Local pay phone calls have cost a quarter apiece ever since the 1970s, when a soft drink from a vending machine cost about the same. Statement3: The government has banned the soft drink from rise in price, so phone companies should obey the regulationtoo.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2005",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the editorial's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Government regulation of phone call prices did not become more stringent between the 1970s and 1990.",
            "O": "Premise1: Between the 1970s and 1990 the cost of ingredients for soft drinks increased at a greater rate than the cost of telephone equipment.",
            "P": "Sent1: 1990 editorial : sent2: local pay phone calls have cost a quarter apiece ever since the 1970s, when a soft drink from a vending machine cost about the same. Statement1: The price of a soft drink has more than doubled since, so phone companies should be allowed to raise the price of pay phone calls too."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to cleaner-burning fuel are the two methods available to northern power for reducing harmful emissions from its plants. Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than cleaner-burning fuels will. Statement2: Therefore, by installing scrubbers, northern power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants.\nPremise1: Harmful emissions from northern power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone.\nPremise2: Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to cleaner-burning fuel are the two methods available to northern power for reducing harmful emissions from its plants. Cleaner-burning fuels will reduce harmful emissions more than scrubbers will. Statement3: Therefore, by burning clearn fuels, northern power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its plants.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2749",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Switching to cleaner-burning fuel will not be more expensive than installing scrubbers.",
            "O": "Premise1: Harmful emissions from northern power's plants cannot be reduced more by using both methods together than by the installation of scrubbers alone.",
            "P": "Statement1: Installing scrubbers in smokestacks and switching to cleaner-burning fuel are the two methods available to northern power for reducing harmful emissions from its plants. Scrubbers will reduce harmful emissions more than cleaner-burning fuels will. Statement2: Therefore, by installing scrubbers, northern power will be doing the most that can be done to reduce harmful emissions from its 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: A significant amount of the acquisition budget of a typical university library is spent on subscriptions to scholarly journals. Over the last several years, the average subscription rate a library pays for such a journal has increased dramatically, even though the costs of publishing a scholarly journal have remained fairly constant. Statement2: Obviously, then, in most cases publishing a scholarly journal must be much more profitable now than it was several years ago.\nPremise1: Most subscribers to scholarly journals are individuals, not libraries, and the subscription rates for individuals have generally remained unchanged for the past several years.\nPremise2: Many university libraries have begun to charge higher and higher fines for overdue books and periodicals as a way of passing on increased journal subscription costs to library users.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A significant amount of the acquisition budget of a typical university library is spent on subscriptions to scholarly journals. Over the last several years, the average subscription rate a library pays for such a journal has increased dramatically, even though the costs of publishing a scholarly journal have remained fairly constant. Statement3: Obviously, then, in most casesthe action of subscribing scholarly journals is burdensome for many university libraries.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3541",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many university libraries have begun to charge higher and higher fines for overdue books and periodicals as a way of passing on increased journal subscription costs to library users.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most subscribers to scholarly journals are individuals, not libraries, and the subscription rates for individuals have generally remained unchanged for the past several years.",
            "P": "Statement1: A significant amount of the acquisition budget of a typical university library is spent on subscriptions to scholarly journals. Over the last several years, the average subscription rate a library pays for such a journal has increased dramatically, even though the costs of publishing a scholarly journal have remained fairly constant. Statement2: Obviously, then, in most cases publishing a scholarly journal must be much more profitable now than it was several years ago."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Carol : the best choice for investment is real estate because the payout is huge. Even though the market can be a little unpredictable, it's the quickest way to turn a sizable profit. Statement2: Kenny : real estate is way too risky and people get huge sums of money tied up into one house that sometimes they can't sell or the value depreciates precipitously. It's much wiser to invest in dependable things like utilities or bonds.\nPremise1: Carol is more willing to take risks than kenny.\nPremise2: Carol is very risk averse.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Kenny: the best choice for investment is real estate because the payout is huge. Even though the market can be a little unpredictable, it's the quickest way to turn a sizable profit. Statement4: Carol : real estate is way risky and people get huge sums of money tied up into one house that sometimes they can't sell or the value depreciates precipitously. It's much wiser to invest in dependable things like utilities or bonds.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1259",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Based on the text above, which of the following can be assumed about carol and kenny's investment strategies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Carol is very risk averse.",
            "O": "Premise1: Carol is more willing to take risks than kenny.",
            "P": "Statement1: Carol : the best choice for investment is real estate because the payout is huge. Even though the market can be a little unpredictable, it's the quickest way to turn a sizable profit. Statement2: Kenny : real estate is way too risky and people get huge sums of money tied up into one house that sometimes they can't sell or the value depreciates precipitously. It's much wiser to invest in dependable things like utilities or bonds."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Foster : many species of extremely large north american mammals became extinct during the last ice age, which was also the time of the first human migration to north america. Statement2: These species could not survive the dramatic changes wrought by this human migration. Statement3: Fisch : those extinctions were caused by the dramatic shift to a harsher climate. Statement4: The climate changed so rapidly that the species could not adapt.\nPremise1: The huge size of the mammals made it difficult for them to migrate the great distances to milder environments.\nPremise2: Archaeological evidence reveals that the human migrants had a number of different kinds of large weapons.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Fisch : many species of extremely large north american mammals became extinct during the last ice age, which was also the time of the first human migration to north america. Statement2: These species could not survive the dramatic changes wrought by this human migration. Statement3: Foster : those extinctions were caused by the dramatic shift to a harsher climate. Statement4: The climate changed so rapidly that the species could not adapt.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2538",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens fisch's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Archaeological evidence reveals that the human migrants had a number of different kinds of large weapons.",
            "O": "Premise1: The huge size of the mammals made it difficult for them to migrate the great distances to milder environments.",
            "P": "Statement1: Foster : many species of extremely large north american mammals became extinct during the last ice age, which was also the time of the first human migration to north america. Statement2: These species could not survive the dramatic changes wrought by this human migration. Statement3: Fisch : those extinctions were caused by the dramatic shift to a harsher climate. Statement4: The climate changed so rapidly that the species could not adapt."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Using fossil energy more efficiently is in the interest of the nation and the global environment, but major improvements are unlikely unless proposed government standards are implemented to eliminate products or practices that are among the least efficient in their class. Statement2: Objection : decisions on energy use are best left to the operation of the market.\nPremise1: Often the purchaser of a product, such as a landlord buying an appliance, chooses on the basis of purchase price because the purchaser is not the person who will pay for energy used by the product.\nPremise2: It would be unrealistic to expect society to make the changes necessary to achieve maximum energy efficiency all at once.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Using fossil energy more efficiently is in the interest of the nation and the global environment, but major improvements are unlikely unless proposed government standards are implemented step by step toeliminate products or practices that are among the least efficient in their class. Statement2: Objection : fossil energy use can be achieved in a short time.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4504",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most directly undermines the objection above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: It would be unrealistic to expect society to make the changes necessary to achieve maximum energy efficiency all at once.",
            "O": "Premise1: Often the purchaser of a product, such as a landlord buying an appliance, chooses on the basis of purchase price because the purchaser is not the person who will pay for energy used by the product.",
            "P": "Statement1: Using fossil energy more efficiently is in the interest of the nation and the global environment, but major improvements are unlikely unless proposed government standards are implemented to eliminate products or practices that are among the least efficient in their class. Statement2: Objection : decisions on energy use are best left to the operation of the market."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 recent study of 10,000 people who were involved in automobile accidents found that a low percentage of those driving large automobiles at the time of their accidents were injured, but a high percentage of those who were driving small automobiles at the time of their accidents were injured. Statement2: Thus, one is less likely to be injured in an automobile accident if one drives a large car rather than a small car.\nPremise1: A large automobile is far more likely to be involved in an accident than is a small automobile.\nPremise2: Only a small percentage of those people involved in an automobile accident are injured as a result.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A recent study of 10,000 trafficaccidents found that a low percentage of those were bicycle accidents, but a high percentage of those were automobile accidents. Statement2: Thus, one is less likely to be injured in a traffic accident if one ride a bicycle rather than a car.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3539",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Only a small percentage of those people involved in an automobile accident are injured as a result.",
            "O": "Premise1: A large automobile is far more likely to be involved in an accident than is a small automobile.",
            "P": "Statement1: A recent study of 10,000 people who were involved in automobile accidents found that a low percentage of those driving large automobiles at the time of their accidents were injured, but a high percentage of those who were driving small automobiles at the time of their accidents were injured. Statement2: Thus, one is less likely to be injured in an automobile accident if one drives a large car rather than a small car."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Adults have the right to vote ; so should adolescents. Statement2: Admittedly, adolescents and adults are not the same. Statement3: But to the extent that adolescents and adults are different, adults can not be expected to represent the interests of adolescents. Statement4: If adults can not represent the interests of adolescents, then only by giving adolescents the vote will these interests be represented.\nPremise1: Adolescents should have their interests represented.\nPremise2: The right to vote is a right that all human beings should have.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Adults have the right to vote ; so should adolescents. Statement2: Admittedly, adolescents and adults are not the same. Statement3: But to the extent that adolescents and adults are different, adults can not be expected to exercise the rights of adolescents. Statement4: If adults can not exercise the rights of adolescents, then only by giving adolescents the vote will these rights be exercised.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1198",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The right to vote is a right that all human beings should have.",
            "O": "Premise1: Adolescents should have their interests represented.",
            "P": "Statement1: Adults have the right to vote ; so should adolescents. Statement2: Admittedly, adolescents and adults are not the same. Statement3: But to the extent that adolescents and adults are different, adults can not be expected to represent the interests of adolescents. Statement4: If adults can not represent the interests of adolescents, then only by giving adolescents the vote will these interests be represented."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Toxicologist : a survey of oil-refinery workers who work with mbte, an ingredient currently used in some smog-reducing gasolines, found an alarming incidence of complaints about headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Statement2: Since gasoline containing mbte will soon be widely used, we can expect an increased incidence of headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath.\nPremise1: Headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath are among the symptoms of several medical conditions that are potentially serious threats to public health.\nPremise2: Most oil-refinery workers who do not work with mbte do not have serious health problems involving headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Toxicologist : a survey of oil-refinery workers who work with mbte, an ingredient currently used in some smog-reducing gasolines, found an alarming incidence of complaints about headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Statement2: So for workers' health, we should close all oil refineries.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4565",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, strengthens the toxicologist's argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most oil-refinery workers who do not work with mbte do not have serious health problems involving headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath.",
            "O": "Premise1: Headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath are among the symptoms of several medical conditions that are potentially serious threats to public health.",
            "P": "Statement1: Toxicologist : a survey of oil-refinery workers who work with mbte, an ingredient currently used in some smog-reducing gasolines, found an alarming incidence of complaints about headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Statement2: Since gasoline containing mbte will soon be widely used, we can expect an increased incidence of headaches, fatigue, and shortness of breath."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Last winter was mild enough to allow most bird species to forage naturally, which explains why the proportion of birds visiting feeders was much lower than usual. Statement2: The mild winter also allowed many species to stay in their summer range all winter without migrating south, thereby limiting the usual attrition accompanying migration. Statement3: Hence, last year's mild winter is responsible for this year's larger-than-usual bird population.\nPremise1: Birds eating at feeders are more vulnerable to predators than are birds foraging naturally.\nPremise2: Birds that remain in their summer range all winter often exhaust that range's food supply before spring.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Last winter was mild enough to allow most bird species to forage naturally, which explains why the proportion of birds visiting feeders was much lower than usual. Statement2: The mild winter also allowed many species to stay in their summer range all winter without migrating south, thereby limiting the usual attrition accompanying migration. Statement3: Hence, last year's mild winter is responsible for some bird starved this spring.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_1271",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the reasoning in the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Birds that remain in their summer range all winter often exhaust that range's food supply before spring.",
            "O": "Premise1: Birds eating at feeders are more vulnerable to predators than are birds foraging naturally.",
            "P": "Statement1: Last winter was mild enough to allow most bird species to forage naturally, which explains why the proportion of birds visiting feeders was much lower than usual. Statement2: The mild winter also allowed many species to stay in their summer range all winter without migrating south, thereby limiting the usual attrition accompanying migration. Statement3: Hence, last year's mild winter is responsible for this year's larger-than-usual bird 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: There is evidence to suggest that our cave-dwelling ancestors polished many of their flints to a degree far surpassing what was necessary for hunting purposes. Statement2: It seems, therefore, that early humans possessed an aesthetic sense.\nPremise1: Flints were often used by early humans for everyday chores other than hunting.\nPremise2: Most flints used by our cave-dwelling ancestors were not highly polished.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: We discovered a highly polished flints used by our cave-dwelling ancestors. Statement2: It seems, therefore, that highly polished flints widely existed at that time.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_666",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most flints used by our cave-dwelling ancestors were not highly polished.",
            "O": "Premise1: Flints were often used by early humans for everyday chores other than hunting.",
            "P": "Statement1: There is evidence to suggest that our cave-dwelling ancestors polished many of their flints to a degree far surpassing what was necessary for hunting purposes. Statement2: It seems, therefore, that early humans possessed an aesthetic sense."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Tea made from camellia leaves is a popular beverage. Statement2: However, studies show that regular drinkers of camellia tea usually suffer withdrawal symptoms if they discontinue drinking the tea. Furthermore, regular drinkers of camellia tea are more likely than people in general to develop kidney damage. Statement3: Regular consumption of this tea, therefore, can result in a heightened risk of kidney damage.\nPremise1: Many people who regularly consume camellia tea also regularly consume other beverages suspected of causing kidney damage.\nPremise2: Several other popular beverages contain the same addictive chemical that is found in camellia tea.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Tea made from camellia leaves is a popular beverage. Statement2: However, studies show that regular drinkers of camellia tea usually suffer withdrawal symptoms if they discontinue drinking the tea. Furthermore, regular drinkers of camellia tea are more likely than people in general to develop kidney damage. Statement4: Therefore, drinking other popular beverages can avoid occuring withdrawal symptoms.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2131",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Several other popular beverages contain the same addictive chemical that is found in camellia tea.",
            "O": "Premise1: Many people who regularly consume camellia tea also regularly consume other beverages suspected of causing kidney damage.",
            "P": "Statement1: Tea made from camellia leaves is a popular beverage. Statement2: However, studies show that regular drinkers of camellia tea usually suffer withdrawal symptoms if they discontinue drinking the tea. Furthermore, regular drinkers of camellia tea are more likely than people in general to develop kidney damage. Statement3: Regular consumption of this tea, therefore, can result in a heightened risk of kidney damage."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 : some people argue that we have an obligation not to cut down trees. Statement2: However, there can be no obligation to an entity unless that entity has a corresponding right. So if we have an obligation toward trees, then trees have rights. Statement3: But trees are not the sort of things that can have rights. Statement4: Therefore, we have no obligation not to cut down trees.\nPremise1: Avoiding cutting down trees is not an obligation owed to some entity other than trees.\nPremise2: Only conscious entities are the sort of things that can have rights.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Editorialist : some people argue that we have an obligation not to cut down trees. Statement2: However, there can be no obligation to an entity unless that entity has a corresponding right. Trees are an entity of cutting down trees. Statement4: But trees are not conscious. Statement5: Therefore, we have no obligation not to cut down trees.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_3028",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The editorialist's argument depends on assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Only conscious entities are the sort of things that can have rights.",
            "O": "Premise1: Avoiding cutting down trees is not an obligation owed to some entity other than trees.",
            "P": "Statement1: Editorialist : some people argue that we have an obligation not to cut down trees. Statement2: However, there can be no obligation to an entity unless that entity has a corresponding right. So if we have an obligation toward trees, then trees have rights. Statement3: But trees are not the sort of things that can have rights. Statement4: Therefore, we have no obligation not to cut down trees."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Mall owner : our mall's occupancy rate is so low that we are barely making a profit. Statement2: We can not raise rents because of an unacceptably high risk of losing established tenants. On the other hand, a mall that is fully occupied costs about as much to run as one in which a rental space here and a rental space there stands empty. Statement3: Clearly, therefore, to increase profits we must sign up new tenants.\nPremise1: The mall's operating costs could be cut by consolidating currently rented spaces in such a way that an entire wing of the mall could be closed up.\nPremise2: None of the mall's established tenants is likely to need additional floor space there in the foreseeable future.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Mall owner : our mall's occupancy rate is so low that we are barely making a profit. Statement2: We can not raise rents because of an unacceptably high risk of losing established tenants. On the other hand, a mall that is fully occupied costs about as much to run as one in which a rental space here and a rental space there stands empty .moreover, most tenants are reluctant to change locations. Statement4: Clearly, therefore, to increase profits we must sign up new tenantsor expect a permanent tenant to need more rental space..",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1823",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: None of the mall's established tenants is likely to need additional floor space there in the foreseeable future.",
            "O": "Premise1: The mall's operating costs could be cut by consolidating currently rented spaces in such a way that an entire wing of the mall could be closed up.",
            "P": "Statement1: Mall owner : our mall's occupancy rate is so low that we are barely making a profit. Statement2: We can not raise rents because of an unacceptably high risk of losing established tenants. On the other hand, a mall that is fully occupied costs about as much to run as one in which a rental space here and a rental space there stands empty. Statement3: Clearly, therefore, to increase profits we must sign up new tenants."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 was misleading for james to tell the core curriculum committee that the chair of the anthropology department had endorsed his proposal. Statement2: The chair of the anthropology department had told james that his proposal had her endorsement, but only if the draft proposal she saw included all the recommendations james would ultimately make to the core curriculum committee.\nPremise1: The draft proposal that the chair of the anthropology department had seen did not include all of the recommendations in james's proposal to the core curriculum committee.\nPremise2: If the chair of the anthropology department did not endorse james's proposed recommendations, the core curriculum committee would be unlikely to implement them.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: It was not a misleading for james to tell the core curriculum committee that the chair of the anthropology department had endorsed his proposal. Statement2: The chair of the anthropology department had told james that his proposal had her endorsement, because the draft proposal she saw included all the recommendations james ultimately made to the core curriculum committe who have started implementing the recommendations.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2304",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If the chair of the anthropology department did not endorse james's proposed recommendations, the core curriculum committee would be unlikely to implement them.",
            "O": "Premise1: The draft proposal that the chair of the anthropology department had seen did not include all of the recommendations in james's proposal to the core curriculum committee.",
            "P": "Statement1: It was misleading for james to tell the core curriculum committee that the chair of the anthropology department had endorsed his proposal. Statement2: The chair of the anthropology department had told james that his proposal had her endorsement, but only if the draft proposal she saw included all the recommendations james would ultimately make to the core curriculum committee."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 country of baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Statement2: Therefore, since per capita income in baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, baurisia is soon likely to become an importer of grain.\nPremise1: It is more economical for baurisians to import meat than grain.\nPremise2: The per capita consumption of meat in baurisia is roughly the same across all income levels.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The country of baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat. Statement3: Therefore, since per capita income in baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic meat production are highly unlikely, baurisia is soon likely to become an importer of meat.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3088",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The per capita consumption of meat in baurisia is roughly the same across all income levels.",
            "O": "Premise1: It is more economical for baurisians to import meat than grain.",
            "P": "Statement1: The country of baurisia has, until now, been self-sufficient in both grain and meat. However, with growing prosperity in baurisia has come a steadily increasing per capita consumption of meat, and it takes several pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. Statement2: Therefore, since per capita income in baurisia is almost certain to rise further but increases in domestic grain production are highly unlikely, baurisia is soon likely to become an importer of grain."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 most people, the left half of the brain controls linguistic capabilities, but some people have their language centers in the right half. Statement2: When a language center of the brain is damaged, for example by a stroke, linguistic capabilities are impaired in some way. Statement3: Therefore, people who have suffered a serious stroke on the left side of the brain without suffering any such impairment must have their language centers in the right half.\nPremise1: If there are language centers on the left side of the brain, any serious stroke affecting that side of the brain damages at least one of them.\nPremise2: Strokes tend to impair linguistic capabilities more severely than does any other cause of damage to language centers in the brain.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: For most people, the left half of the brain controls linguistic capabilities, but some people have their language centers in the right half. Statement2: When a language center of the brain is damaged, for example by a stroke or other disease. Linguistic capabilities are impaired in some way. Statement3: Therefore, people who have suffered a stroke on the left side of the brain without suffering any such impairment must have their language centers in the right half.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_987",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the reasoning in the argument above depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Strokes tend to impair linguistic capabilities more severely than does any other cause of damage to language centers in the brain.",
            "O": "Premise1: If there are language centers on the left side of the brain, any serious stroke affecting that side of the brain damages at least one of them.",
            "P": "Statement1: For most people, the left half of the brain controls linguistic capabilities, but some people have their language centers in the right half. Statement2: When a language center of the brain is damaged, for example by a stroke, linguistic capabilities are impaired in some way. Statement3: Therefore, people who have suffered a serious stroke on the left side of the brain without suffering any such impairment must have their language centers in the right half."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Economist : the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in country y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Statement2: Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in country y would be to institute fixed upper limits on them.\nPremise1: Policy makers in country y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.\nPremise2: Policy makers in country y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Economist : the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. In country y, many serious pollutants are taxed and regulated to improve the air quality., and policy makers agree with new taxes. Statement3: Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in country y would be to tax and regulate the air pollutants..",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1474",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption of the economist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Policy makers in country y strongly favor reductions in air pollutant emissions.",
            "O": "Premise1: Policy makers in country y do not oppose setting fixed upper limits on air pollutant emissions as strongly as they oppose new taxes.",
            "P": "Statement1: Economist : the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions of air pollutants is to tax them in proportion to the damage they are likely to cause. But in country y, many serious pollutants are untaxed and unregulated, and policy makers strongly oppose new taxes. Statement2: Therefore, the best way to achieve a reduction in air pollutant emissions in country y would be to institute fixed upper limits on 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: Editorial in krenlandian newspaper : krenland's steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in krenland's steel industry. Statement2: Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports.\nPremise1: For many krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.\nPremise2: Because steel from krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of krenlandian steelmakers' revenue comes from exports.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Editorial in krenlandian newspaper : krenland's steelmakers are losing international sales because of lower-priced steel, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be lower steel exports in krenland's steel industry. Statement3: Therefore, it would protect not only revenue of the steelmakers but also krenland's steel exports if our government took measures to support krenland's steel sales in international markets.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3401",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the editorial's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Because steel from krenland is rarely competitive in international markets, only a very small portion of krenlandian steelmakers' revenue comes from exports.",
            "O": "Premise1: For many krenlandian manufacturers who face severe international competition in both domestic and export markets, steel constitutes a significant part of their raw material costs.",
            "P": "Statement1: Editorial in krenlandian newspaper : krenland's steelmakers are losing domestic sales because of lower-priced imports, in many cases because foreign governments subsidize their steel industries in ways that are banned by international treaties. But whatever the cause, the cost is ultimately going to be jobs in krenland's steel industry. Statement2: Therefore, it would protect not only steel companies but also industrial employment in krenland if our government took measures to reduce cheap steel imports."
        }
    },
    {
        "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. 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. Statement2: 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. 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 1585 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_2652",
        "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. 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. Statement2: 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: A physically active lifestyle has been shown to help increase longevity. Statement2: In the wistar region of bellaria, the average age at death is considerably higher than in any other part of the country. Statement3: Wistar is the only mountainous part of bellaria. A mountainous terrain makes even such basic activities as walking relatively strenuous ; it essentially imposes a physically active lifestyle on people. Statement4: Clearly, this circumstance explains the long lives of people in wistar.\nPremise1: Many people who live in the wistar region have moved there in middle age or upon retirement.\nPremise2: In bellaria all medical expenses are paid by the government, so that personal income does not affect the quality of health care a person receives.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: High income has been shown to help increase longevity. Statement2: In the wistar region of bellaria, the average age at death is considerably higher than in any other part of the country. Statement3: Wistar is the only developedpart of bellaria. A high level of income can help people receive better quality of health care. Statement5: Clearly, this circumstance explains the long lives of people in wistar.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_980",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In bellaria all medical expenses are paid by the government, so that personal income does not affect the quality of health care a person receives.",
            "O": "Premise1: Many people who live in the wistar region have moved there in middle age or upon retirement.",
            "P": "Statement1: A physically active lifestyle has been shown to help increase longevity. Statement2: In the wistar region of bellaria, the average age at death is considerably higher than in any other part of the country. Statement3: Wistar is the only mountainous part of bellaria. A mountainous terrain makes even such basic activities as walking relatively strenuous ; it essentially imposes a physically active lifestyle on people. Statement4: Clearly, this circumstance explains the long lives of people in wistar."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 analyst : several years ago, mcfarlane, the military dictator, had brooks, the former prime minister, arrested on charges of corruption. Statement2: After years of negotiation, mcfarlane has pardoned brooks, and she has agreed to join his government. Statement3: Almost all of mcfarlane's supporters believe that brooks is guilty of corruption. Statement4: Moreover, almost all of mcfarlane's opponents will oppose anyone who agrees to join his government. Statement5: So brooks will have few supporters in this country.\nPremise1: Most people in the country are either supporters or opponents of mcfarlane\nPremise2: The charges on which brooks was arrested were unfounded\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Political analyst : several years ago, brooks, the former prime minister was arrested on charges of corruption. Statement2: After years of negotiation, mcfarlane has made peace with brooks, and she has agreed to join his government. Statement3: Almost all of mcfarlane's supporters believe that brooks is not guilty of corruption. Statement4:  Statement5: So brooks will have a lot of supporters in this country.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_292",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The political analyst's argument depends on the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: The charges on which brooks was arrested were unfounded",
            "O": "Premise1: Most people in the country are either supporters or opponents of mcfarlane",
            "P": "Statement1: Political analyst : several years ago, mcfarlane, the military dictator, had brooks, the former prime minister, arrested on charges of corruption. Statement2: After years of negotiation, mcfarlane has pardoned brooks, and she has agreed to join his government. Statement3: Almost all of mcfarlane's supporters believe that brooks is guilty of corruption. Statement4: Moreover, almost all of mcfarlane's opponents will oppose anyone who agrees to join his government. Statement5: So brooks will have few supporters in this country."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 scientist made three observations : ( 1 ) in the world's temperate zones, food is more plentiful in the ocean than it is in fresh water ; ( 2 ) migratory fish in temperate zones generally mature in the ocean and spawn in fresh water ; and ( 3 ) migratory fish need much nourishment as they mature but little or none during the part of their lives when they spawn. Statement2: On the basis of those observations, the scientist formulated the hypothesis that food availability is a determining factor in the migration of migratory fish. Statement3: Subsequently the scientist learned that in the tropics migratory fish generally mature in fresh water and spawn in the ocean.\nPremise1: Whether in the tropics food is less plentiful in the ocean than in fresh water\nPremise2: Whether in the world's temperate zones, the temperatures of bodies of fresh water tend to be lower than those of the regions of the oceans into which they flow\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A scientist made three observations : ( 1 ) in the world's tropics, temperature is lower in the ocean than it is in fresh water ; ( 2 ) migratory fish in temperate zones generally mature in fresh water and spawn in the ocean ; and ( 3 ) migratory fish need warmer environment during the part of their lives when they spawn. Statement2: On the basis of those observations, the scientist formulated the hypothesis that temperature is a determining factor in the migration of migratory fish. Statement3: Subsequently the scientist learned that in the temperate zones migratory fish generally mature in the ocean and spawn in fresh water.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1299",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to judge whether what the scientist subsequently learned calls into question the hypothesis?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Whether in the world's temperate zones, the temperatures of bodies of fresh water tend to be lower than those of the regions of the oceans into which they flow",
            "O": "Premise1: Whether in the tropics food is less plentiful in the ocean than in fresh water",
            "P": "Statement1: A scientist made three observations : ( 1 ) in the world's temperate zones, food is more plentiful in the ocean than it is in fresh water ; ( 2 ) migratory fish in temperate zones generally mature in the ocean and spawn in fresh water ; and ( 3 ) migratory fish need much nourishment as they mature but little or none during the part of their lives when they spawn. Statement2: On the basis of those observations, the scientist formulated the hypothesis that food availability is a determining factor in the migration of migratory fish. Statement3: Subsequently the scientist learned that in the tropics migratory fish generally mature in fresh water and spawn in the ocean."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Linguist : regional dialects, many of which eventually become distinct languages, are responses by local populations to their own particular communicative needs. Statement2: So even when the unification of the world economy forces the adoption of a universal language for use in international trade, this language itself will inevitably develop many regional dialects.\nPremise1: After the unification of the world economy, there will be variation among many different local populations in their communicative needs in international trade.\nPremise2: When the unification of the world economy forces the adoption of a universal language for use in international trade, many regional dialects of other languages will be eradicated.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Linguist : regional dialects, many of which eventually become same language, are responses by local populations to their same communicative needs. Statement2: So when the unification of the world economy forces the adoption of a universal language for use in international trade, this language itself will not develop any regional dialects.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1845",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption that the linguist's argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: When the unification of the world economy forces the adoption of a universal language for use in international trade, many regional dialects of other languages will be eradicated.",
            "O": "Premise1: After the unification of the world economy, there will be variation among many different local populations in their communicative needs in international trade.",
            "P": "Statement1: Linguist : regional dialects, many of which eventually become distinct languages, are responses by local populations to their own particular communicative needs. Statement2: So even when the unification of the world economy forces the adoption of a universal language for use in international trade, this language itself will inevitably develop many regional dialects."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Statement2: Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers.\nPremise1: Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.\nPremise2: Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, and importing oil on tankers presently entails an less such risk per barrel of oil. Statement2: Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest less in offshore operations and import more oil on tankers.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1476",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Oil spills caused by tankers have generally been more serious than those caused by offshore operations.",
            "O": "Premise1: Tankers can easily be redesigned so that their use entails less risk of an oil spill.",
            "P": "Statement1: Offshore oil-drilling operations entail an unavoidable risk of an oil spill, but importing oil on tankers presently entails an even greater such risk per barrel of oil. Statement2: Therefore, if we are to reduce the risk of an oil spill without curtailing our use of oil, we must invest more in offshore operations and import less oil on tankers."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: By competing with rodents for seeds, black ants help control rodent populations that pose a public health risk. However, a very aggressive species of black ant, the loma ant, which has recently invaded a certain region, has a venomous sting that is often fatal to humans. Statement2: Therefore, the planned introduction into that region of ant flies, which prey on loma ants, would benefit public health.\nPremise1: Ant flies do not attack black ants other than loma ants.\nPremise2: The sting of loma ants can also be fatal to rodents.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: By competing with rodents for seeds, black ants help control rodent populations that pose a public health risk. And, a very aggressive species of black ant, the loma ant, which has recently been introduced into a certain region, has a venomous sting. Statement3: Therefore, the loma ants, would be more effective than other black ants in controling rodent populations and benefit public health.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3828",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The sting of loma ants can also be fatal to rodents.",
            "O": "Premise1: Ant flies do not attack black ants other than loma ants.",
            "P": "Statement1: By competing with rodents for seeds, black ants help control rodent populations that pose a public health risk. However, a very aggressive species of black ant, the loma ant, which has recently invaded a certain region, has a venomous sting that is often fatal to humans. Statement2: Therefore, the planned introduction into that region of ant flies, which prey on loma ants, would benefit public 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: John looks like a professional bodybuilder. Statement2: He weighs 210 pounds and stands six feet tall, which is the size of an nfl linebacker. John looks huge when he enters the room. Statement3: Years of gym time have clearly paid off in spades.\nPremise1: John's father, brothers, and male cousins all look like professional bodybuilders, and none of them have ever worked out.\nPremise2: John works out five times every week.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: John doesn't look like a professional bodybuilder. Statement2: He weighs 150 pounds and stands six feet tall, which is not the size of an nfl linebacker. John looks thin when he enters the room. Statement4: It seems he hasn't taken the time to exercise over the years.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4536",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: John works out five times every week.",
            "O": "Premise1: John's father, brothers, and male cousins all look like professional bodybuilders, and none of them have ever worked out.",
            "P": "Statement1: John looks like a professional bodybuilder. Statement2: He weighs 210 pounds and stands six feet tall, which is the size of an nfl linebacker. John looks huge when he enters the room. Statement3: Years of gym time have clearly paid off in spades."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Traditionally, students at kelly university have evaluated professors on the last day of class. But some professors at kelly either do not distribute the paper evaluation forms or do so selectively, and many students can not attend the last day of class. Statement2: Soon, students will be able to use school computers to evaluate their professors at any time during the semester. Statement3: Therefore, evaluations under the new system will accurately reflect the distribution of student opinion about teaching performance.\nPremise1: Dissatisfied students are in general not more likely than satisfied students to submit a computerized evaluation.\nPremise2: Students can wisely and insightfully assess a professor's performance before the end of the semester.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Traditionally, students at kelly university have evaluated professors on the last day of class. But some professors at kelly either do not distribute the paper evaluation forms or do so selectively, and many students can not attend the last day of class. Statement3: Soon, students will be able to use school computers to evaluate their professors under mandatory requirements during the last week of the semester. Statement4: Therefore, evaluations under the new system will accurately reflect the distribution of student opinion about teaching performance of a semester.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3889",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Students can wisely and insightfully assess a professor's performance before the end of the semester.",
            "O": "Premise1: Dissatisfied students are in general not more likely than satisfied students to submit a computerized evaluation.",
            "P": "Statement1: Traditionally, students at kelly university have evaluated professors on the last day of class. But some professors at kelly either do not distribute the paper evaluation forms or do so selectively, and many students can not attend the last day of class. Statement2: Soon, students will be able to use school computers to evaluate their professors at any time during the semester. Statement3: Therefore, evaluations under the new system will accurately reflect the distribution of student opinion about teaching performance."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Columnist : the amount of acidic pollutants released into the air has decreased throughout the world over the last several decades. Statement2: We can expect, then, an overall decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain, which is caused by these acidic pollutants.\nPremise1: Some ecosystems have developed sophisticated mechanisms that reduce the negative effects of increased levels of acids in the environment.\nPremise2: The soils of many ecosystems exposed to acid rain have been exhausted of minerals that help protect them from acid rain's harmful effects.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Columnist : the amount of acidic pollutants released into the air has decreased throughout the world over the last several decades. Statement2: We can expect, then, an overall decrease in the negative soil effects of acid rain, which is caused by these acidic pollutants.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1118",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, would weaken the columnist's argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: The soils of many ecosystems exposed to acid rain have been exhausted of minerals that help protect them from acid rain's harmful effects.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some ecosystems have developed sophisticated mechanisms that reduce the negative effects of increased levels of acids in the environment.",
            "P": "Statement1: Columnist : the amount of acidic pollutants released into the air has decreased throughout the world over the last several decades. Statement2: We can expect, then, an overall decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain, which is caused by these acidic pollutants."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 certain credit-card company awards its customers bonus points for using its credit card. Statement2: Customers can use accumulated points in the purchase of brand name merchandise by mail at prices lower than the manufacturers'suggested retail prices. Statement3: At any given time, therefore, customers who purchase merchandise using the bonus points spend less than they would spend if they purchased the same merchandise in retail stores.\nPremise1: The amount credit-card customers pay for shipping the merchandise ordered by mail does not increase the amount customers spend to an amount greater than they would spend if they purchased the same merchandise in retail stores.\nPremise2: The merchandise available to the company's credit-card customers using the bonus points is frequently sold in retail stores at prices that are higher than the manufacturers' suggested retail prices.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A certain credit-card company awards its customers bonus points for using its credit card. Statement2: However, customers use accumulated points in the purchase of brand name merchandise by mail at prices higher than the manufacturers'suggested retail prices. Statement3: At any given time, therefore, customers who purchase merchandise using the bonus points spend more than they would spend if they purchased the same merchandise in retail stores.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_249",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The merchandise available to the company's credit-card customers using the bonus points is frequently sold in retail stores at prices that are higher than the manufacturers' suggested retail prices.",
            "O": "Premise1: The amount credit-card customers pay for shipping the merchandise ordered by mail does not increase the amount customers spend to an amount greater than they would spend if they purchased the same merchandise in retail stores.",
            "P": "Statement1: A certain credit-card company awards its customers bonus points for using its credit card. Statement2: Customers can use accumulated points in the purchase of brand name merchandise by mail at prices lower than the manufacturers'suggested retail prices. Statement3: At any given time, therefore, customers who purchase merchandise using the bonus points spend less than they would spend if they purchased the same merchandise in retail stores."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 people fear that global warming will cause the large ice formations in the polar seas to melt, thereby warming the waters of those seas and threatening the plankton that is crucial to the marine food chain. Statement2: Some scientists contend that it is unlikely that the melting process has begun, since water temperatures in the polar seas are the same today as they were a century ago.\nPremise1: The temperature of water that contains melting ice tends to remain constant until all of the ice in the ice-and-water mixture has melted.\nPremise2: The mean air temperature above both land and water in the polar regions has not varied significantly over the past 100 years.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Some people fear that global warming will cause the large ice formations in the polar seas to melt, thereby warming the waters of those seas and threatening the plankton that is crucial to the marine food chain. Statement2: Some scientists contend that the melting process has begun, since water temperatures in the polar seas are higher in a century ago.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3690",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the scientists'contention?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The mean air temperature above both land and water in the polar regions has not varied significantly over the past 100 years.",
            "O": "Premise1: The temperature of water that contains melting ice tends to remain constant until all of the ice in the ice-and-water mixture has melted.",
            "P": "Statement1: Some people fear that global warming will cause the large ice formations in the polar seas to melt, thereby warming the waters of those seas and threatening the plankton that is crucial to the marine food chain. Statement2: Some scientists contend that it is unlikely that the melting process has begun, since water temperatures in the polar seas are the same today as they were a century ago."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 : members of the national legislature have received a very large number of phone calls and letters from people wanting to express their opinions about the new bill before the legislature, which would increase the current tax on bidis and cigarettes by one rupee per pack to pay for new antismoking advertisements. Statement2: Since a great majority of these people expressed opposition to the bill, it is clear that the public overwhelmingly opposes this tax increase.\nPremise1: People who oppose a tax bill are far more likely to contact a legislator to express their opinions than are those who do not oppose the bill.\nPremise2: Most antismoking advertisements are currently paid for by private organizations rather than being funded by taxes paid to the government.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Politician : members of the national legislature have received a very large number of phone calls and letters from people wanting to express their opinions about the new bill before the legislature, which would increase the current tax on bidis and cigarettes by one rupee per pack to pay for new antismoking advertisements. Statement2: Since a great majority of these people expressed opposition to the bill, it is clear that the public overwhelmingly opposes the continued use of tax money for anti-smoking advertising.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3657",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most antismoking advertisements are currently paid for by private organizations rather than being funded by taxes paid to the government.",
            "O": "Premise1: People who oppose a tax bill are far more likely to contact a legislator to express their opinions than are those who do not oppose the bill.",
            "P": "Statement1: Politician : members of the national legislature have received a very large number of phone calls and letters from people wanting to express their opinions about the new bill before the legislature, which would increase the current tax on bidis and cigarettes by one rupee per pack to pay for new antismoking advertisements. Statement2: Since a great majority of these people expressed opposition to the bill, it is clear that the public overwhelmingly opposes this tax increase."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 : the city has chosen a contractor to upgrade the heating systems in public buildings. Only 40 percent of the technicians employed by this contractor are certified by the heating technicians association. Statement2: So the city selected a contractor 60 percent of whose technicians are unqualified, which is an outrage.\nPremise1: Technicians who lack certification are not qualified technicians.\nPremise2: Qualified technicians installed the heating systems to be upgraded.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Editorial : the city has chosen a contractor to upgrade the heating systems in public buildings. 40 percent of the technicians employed by this contractor are certified by the heating technicians association. Statement3: So the city selected a contractor 40 percent of whose technicians are qualified enough to upgrade the heating systems..",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3993",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument in the editorial?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Qualified technicians installed the heating systems to be upgraded.",
            "O": "Premise1: Technicians who lack certification are not qualified technicians.",
            "P": "Statement1: Editorial : the city has chosen a contractor to upgrade the heating systems in public buildings. Only 40 percent of the technicians employed by this contractor are certified by the heating technicians association. Statement2: So the city selected a contractor 60 percent of whose technicians are unqualified, which is an outrage."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 an experiment, each volunteer was allowed to choose between an easy task and a hard task and was told that another volunteer would do the other task. Statement2: Each volunteer could also choose to have a computer assign the two tasks randomly. Statement3: Most volunteers chose the easy task for themselves and under questioning later said they had acted fairly. But when the scenario was described to another group of volunteers, almost all said choosing the easy task would be unfair. Statement4: This shows that most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others.\nPremise1: At least some volunteers who said they had acted fairly in choosing the easy task would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so.\nPremise2: On average, the volunteers to whom the scenario was described were more accurate in their moral judgments than the other volunteers were.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In an experiment, each volunteer was allowed to choose between an easy task and a hard task and was told that another volunteer would do the other task. Statement2: Each volunteer could also choose to have a computer assign the two tasks randomly. Statement3: Most volunteers chose the easy task for themselves and under questioning later said they had acted fairly. But when the scenario was described to another group of volunteers, almost all said choosing the easy task would be unfair. Statement5: This shows that the most moral standard is not to favor anyone.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1506",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption required by this argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: On average, the volunteers to whom the scenario was described were more accurate in their moral judgments than the other volunteers were.",
            "O": "Premise1: At least some volunteers who said they had acted fairly in choosing the easy task would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so.",
            "P": "Statement1: In an experiment, each volunteer was allowed to choose between an easy task and a hard task and was told that another volunteer would do the other task. Statement2: Each volunteer could also choose to have a computer assign the two tasks randomly. Statement3: Most volunteers chose the easy task for themselves and under questioning later said they had acted fairly. But when the scenario was described to another group of volunteers, almost all said choosing the easy task would be unfair. Statement4: This shows that most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Human beings have cognitive faculties that are superior to those of other animals, and once humans become aware of these, they can not be made happy by anything that does not involve gratification of these faculties.\nPremise1: Many people familiar both with intellectual stimulation and with physical pleasures enjoy the latter more.\nPremise2: Many people who are serious athletes consider themselves to be happy.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Human beings who work seriously will not enjoy themselves.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3242",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most calls into question the view above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many people who are serious athletes consider themselves to be happy.",
            "O": "Premise1: Many people familiar both with intellectual stimulation and with physical pleasures enjoy the latter more.",
            "P": "Statement1: Human beings have cognitive faculties that are superior to those of other animals, and once humans become aware of these, they can not be made happy by anything that does not involve gratification of these faculties."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 doctors believe that a certain drug reduces the duration of episodes of vertigo, claiming that the average duration of vertigo for people who suffer from it has decreased since the drug was introduced. Statement2: However, during a recent three-month shortage of the drug, there was no significant change in the average duration of vertigo. Statement3: Thus, we can conclude that the drug has no effect on the duration of vertigo.\nPremise1: If a drug made a difference in the duration of vertigo, a three-month shortage of that drug would have caused a significant change in the average duration of vertigo.\nPremise2: If there were any change in the average duration of vertigo since the introduction of the drug, it would have demonstrated that the drug has an effect on the duration of vertigo.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Some doctors believe that a certain drug reduces the duration of episodes of vertigo, claiming that the average duration of vertigo for people who suffer from it has decreased since the drug was introduced. Statement2: Truly, there was a significant decrease in the average duration of vertigo for taking the drug. Statement3: Thus, we can conclude that the drug has great effect on the duration of vertigo.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1057",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If there were any change in the average duration of vertigo since the introduction of the drug, it would have demonstrated that the drug has an effect on the duration of vertigo.",
            "O": "Premise1: If a drug made a difference in the duration of vertigo, a three-month shortage of that drug would have caused a significant change in the average duration of vertigo.",
            "P": "Statement1: Some doctors believe that a certain drug reduces the duration of episodes of vertigo, claiming that the average duration of vertigo for people who suffer from it has decreased since the drug was introduced. Statement2: However, during a recent three-month shortage of the drug, there was no significant change in the average duration of vertigo. Statement3: Thus, we can conclude that the drug has no effect on the duration of vertigo."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city. Statement2: Ideally there should be at least one municipal employee for every hundred residents ; when too many people move in at once, city services responsible for utilities and permits are quickly overloaded. Statement3: Most city budgets do not allow for the immediate hiring of new staff.\nPremise1: New residents of most small cities do not start paying city taxes for at least a year.\nPremise2: Some large cities can absorb rapid population growth more readily than many small cities can.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city. Statement2: Ideally there should be at least one municipal employee for every hundred residents ; when too many people move in at once, city services responsible for utilities and permits are quickly overloaded. Statement3: But situation is different in big cities, for that big cities has budgets to allow for the immediate hiring of new staff.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2609",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some large cities can absorb rapid population growth more readily than many small cities can.",
            "O": "Premise1: New residents of most small cities do not start paying city taxes for at least a year.",
            "P": "Statement1: Rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city. Statement2: Ideally there should be at least one municipal employee for every hundred residents ; when too many people move in at once, city services responsible for utilities and permits are quickly overloaded. Statement3: Most city budgets do not allow for the immediate hiring of new staff."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Museum visitor : the national government has mandated a 5 percent increase in the minimum wage paid to all workers. Statement2: This mandate will adversely affect the museum-going public. Statement3: The museum's revenue does not currently exceed its expenses, and since the mandate will significantly increase the museum's operating expenses, the museum will be forced either to raise admission fees or to decrease services.\nPremise1: Some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage.\nPremise2: The annual number of visitors to the museum has increased steadily.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Museum visitor : the national government has mandated a 5 percent increase in the minimum wage paid to all workers. Statement2: This mandate will not affect the museum-going public. Statement3: The museum's revenue does not currently exceed its expenses, and also,through the promotion of museum culture and creative products, museums are increasing their income in various ways.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3249",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the museum visitor's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The annual number of visitors to the museum has increased steadily.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage.",
            "P": "Statement1: Museum visitor : the national government has mandated a 5 percent increase in the minimum wage paid to all workers. Statement2: This mandate will adversely affect the museum-going public. Statement3: The museum's revenue does not currently exceed its expenses, and since the mandate will significantly increase the museum's operating expenses, the museum will be forced either to raise admission fees or to decrease services."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Newspaper editorial : sent2: in an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Statement2: Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. Statement3: However, this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates.\nPremise1: The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.\nPremise2: Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate's subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Newspaper editorial : Statement2: In an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is making prison study conditions better. Statement3: Part of this effort has been to allow inmates the access they formerly had to high school-level courses. Statement4: However, this action is not as effective as the governor's ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed more crimes overall than other immates who take college-level courses in other states.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3011",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Taking high school level courses in prison has less effect on an inmate's subsequent behavior than taking college-level courses does.",
            "O": "Premise1: The group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses were not already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released.",
            "P": "Statement1: Newspaper editorial : sent2: in an attempt to reduce the crime rate, the governor is getting tough on criminals and making prison conditions harsher. Statement2: Part of this effort has been to deny inmates the access they formerly had to college-level courses. Statement3: However, this action is clearly counter to the governor's ultimate goal, since after being released from prison, inmates who had taken such courses committed far fewer crimes overall than other inmates."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 airlines allegedly reduce fares on certain routes to a level at which they lose money, in order to drive competitors off those routes. Statement2: However, this method of eliminating competition can not be profitable in the long run. Statement3: Once an airline successfully implements this method, any attempt to recoup the earlier losses by charging high fares on that route for an extended period would only provide competitors with a better opportunity to undercut the airline's fares.\nPremise1: Airline executives generally believe that a company that once underpriced its fares to drive away competitors is very likely to do so again if new competitors emerge.\nPremise2: In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away competitors by selling a product below cost.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Some airlines allegedly reduce fares on certain routes to a level at which they lose money in america,, in order to drive competitors off those routes. Statement2: However, this method of eliminating competition can not be profitable. Statement3: Once an airline successfully implements this method, the american national anti-monopoly authority will santion it for violating the anti-monopoly competition law..",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1302",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In some countries it is not illegal for a company to drive away competitors by selling a product below cost.",
            "O": "Premise1: Airline executives generally believe that a company that once underpriced its fares to drive away competitors is very likely to do so again if new competitors emerge.",
            "P": "Statement1: Some airlines allegedly reduce fares on certain routes to a level at which they lose money, in order to drive competitors off those routes. Statement2: However, this method of eliminating competition can not be profitable in the long run. Statement3: Once an airline successfully implements this method, any attempt to recoup the earlier losses by charging high fares on that route for an extended period would only provide competitors with a better opportunity to undercut the airline's fares."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Editorialist : additional restrictions should be placed on driver's licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic driving skills. Statement2: Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.\nPremise1: Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.\nPremise2: Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Editorialist : additional restrictions should be placed on driver's licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic driving skills. Statement2: Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities .usually person with basic driving skills is not inclined to drive an older, less stable car.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1749",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skills except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers.",
            "O": "Premise1: Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.",
            "P": "Statement1: Editorialist : additional restrictions should be placed on driver's licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic driving skills. Statement2: Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Lawyer : juries are traditionally given their instructions in convoluted, legalistic language. Statement2: The verbiage is intended to make the instructions more precise, but greater precision is of little use if most jurors have difficulty understanding the instructions. Statement3: Since it is more important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their role than it is for the details of that role to be precisely specified, jury instructions should be formulated in simple, easily comprehensible language.\nPremise1: The details of the role of the jurors cannot be specified with complete precision in simple, easily comprehensible language.\nPremise2: Most jurors do not have an adequate understanding of their role after being given jury instructions in convoluted, legalistic language.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Lawyer : juries are traditionally given their instructions in convoluted, legalistic language. Statement2: The verbiage is intended to make the instructions more precise, and although jurors can learn their role deeply through these instructions, it takes a lot of time and efforts.. Statement3: Since it is important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their role in a short timed, jury instructions should be formulated in simple, easily comprehensible language when needed..",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2142",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, strengthens the lawyer's argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most jurors do not have an adequate understanding of their role after being given jury instructions in convoluted, legalistic language.",
            "O": "Premise1: The details of the role of the jurors cannot be specified with complete precision in simple, easily comprehensible language.",
            "P": "Statement1: Lawyer : juries are traditionally given their instructions in convoluted, legalistic language. Statement2: The verbiage is intended to make the instructions more precise, but greater precision is of little use if most jurors have difficulty understanding the instructions. Statement3: Since it is more important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their role than it is for the details of that role to be precisely specified, jury instructions should be formulated in simple, easily comprehensible language."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the aleutian islands declined precipitously. Statement2: There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Statement3: Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the aleutian islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Statement4: Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.\nPremise1: Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.\nPremise2: The population of orcas in the aleutian islands has declined since the 1980s.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the aleutian islands declined precipitously. Statement2: There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Statement3: Seals will eat otters when their food is in a shortage, and the aleutian islands seal population arised dramatically in the 1980s. Statement4: Therefore, seals were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_757",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The population of orcas in the aleutian islands has declined since the 1980s.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most of the surviving sea otters live in a bay that is inaccessible to orcas.",
            "P": "Statement1: Between 1980 and 2000 the sea otter population of the aleutian islands declined precipitously. Statement2: There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of otters being eaten by predators. Statement3: Orcas will eat otters when seals, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the aleutian islands seal population declined dramatically in the 1980s. Statement4: Therefore, orcas were most likely the immediate cause of the otter population decline."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Many economists claim that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over another. But in many surveys, most people do not name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job. Statement2: This shows that these economists overestimate the degree to which people are motivated by money in their job choices.\nPremise1: Jobs that pay the same salary often vary considerably in their other financial benefits.\nPremise2: Some people are not aware that jobs with high salaries typically leave very little time for recreation.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Many economists claim that financial rewards don't provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over another. But in many surveys, most people do name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job. Statement3: This shows that these economists underestimate the degree to which people are motivated by money in their job choices.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4571",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some people are not aware that jobs with high salaries typically leave very little time for recreation.",
            "O": "Premise1: Jobs that pay the same salary often vary considerably in their other financial benefits.",
            "P": "Statement1: Many economists claim that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over another. But in many surveys, most people do not name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job. Statement2: This shows that these economists overestimate the degree to which people are motivated by money in their job choices."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Paleontologists had long supposed that the dinosaur diplodocus browsed for high-growing vegetation such as treetop leaves by raising its very long neck. But now computer models have shown that the structure of diplodocus\"s neck bones would have prevented such movement. The neck could, however, bend downward and even extend below ground level, allowing diplodocus to access underwater vegetation from dry land. Statement2: Thus, diplodocus must have fed on plants on or near the ground, or underwater.\nPremise1: Diplodocus had no other way of accessing high-growing vegetation, such as by rising up on its hind legs.\nPremise2: Diplodocus was not able to browse for underwater vegetation by kneeling beside bodies of water or by walking into them.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Paleontologists had long supposed that the dinosaur diplodocus browsed for high-growing vegetation such as treetop leaves by raising its very long neck. The neck couldn't, meanwhile, bend downward to extend below ground level, not allowing diplodocus to access underwater vegetation from dry land. Statement4: Thus, diplodocus must have fed on plants which are high-growing.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3434",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Diplodocus was not able to browse for underwater vegetation by kneeling beside bodies of water or by walking into them.",
            "O": "Premise1: Diplodocus had no other way of accessing high-growing vegetation, such as by rising up on its hind legs.",
            "P": "Statement1: Paleontologists had long supposed that the dinosaur diplodocus browsed for high-growing vegetation such as treetop leaves by raising its very long neck. But now computer models have shown that the structure of diplodocus\"s neck bones would have prevented such movement. The neck could, however, bend downward and even extend below ground level, allowing diplodocus to access underwater vegetation from dry land. Statement2: Thus, diplodocus must have fed on plants on or near the ground, or underwater."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 chairperson of acme corporation has decided to move the company from its current location in milltown to ocean view. Statement2: Most acme employees can not afford housing within a 30-minute commute of ocean view. Statement3: So once the company has moved, most acme employees will have a commute of more than 30 minutes.\nPremise1: Acme's move to ocean view will not be accompanied by a significant pay raise for acme employees.\nPremise2: All acme employees can afford housing within a 30-minute commute of milltown.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The chairperson of acme corporation has decided to move the company from its current location in ocean view to milltown. Statement2: The housing rent in milltown is far more cheaper than that in ocean view within a 30-minute commute of milltown. Statement3: So once the company has moved, most acme employees will have a commute of less than 30 minutes.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_2507",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument requires assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: All acme employees can afford housing within a 30-minute commute of milltown.",
            "O": "Premise1: Acme's move to ocean view will not be accompanied by a significant pay raise for acme employees.",
            "P": "Statement1: The chairperson of acme corporation has decided to move the company from its current location in milltown to ocean view. Statement2: Most acme employees can not afford housing within a 30-minute commute of ocean view. Statement3: So once the company has moved, most acme employees will have a commute of more than 30 minutes."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Detective : people who repeatedly commit crimes like embezzlement or bribery without being caught tend to become more confident. With each success, they believe that getting caught is less likely. Statement2: However, the more crimes a person commits, the greater the chance that one of those crimes will be solved. Statement3: It is therefore likely that most people who commit embezzlement or bribery will eventually be caught.\nPremise1: The majority of people who commit embezzlement or bribery do so repeatedly.\nPremise2: People who repeatedly commit embezzlement or bribery become more and more careless the longer they avoid detection.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Detective : people who repeatedly commit crimes like embezzlement or bribery without being caught tend to become more casual. With each success, they believe that getting caught is less likely. Statement3: Thus, the more crimes a person commits, the more mistakes he will make to be found. Statement4: It is therefore likely that most people who commit embezzlement or bribery will eventually be caught.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_792",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the detective's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People who repeatedly commit embezzlement or bribery become more and more careless the longer they avoid detection.",
            "O": "Premise1: The majority of people who commit embezzlement or bribery do so repeatedly.",
            "P": "Statement1: Detective : people who repeatedly commit crimes like embezzlement or bribery without being caught tend to become more confident. With each success, they believe that getting caught is less likely. Statement2: However, the more crimes a person commits, the greater the chance that one of those crimes will be solved. Statement3: It is therefore likely that most people who commit embezzlement or bribery will eventually be caught."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Domesticated animals, such as dogs, have come into existence by the breeding of only the individuals of a wild species that are sufficiently tame. For example, if when breeding wolves one breeds only those that display tameness when young, then after a number of generations the offspring will be a species of dog. Statement2: Therefore, all animals can, in principle, be bred for domesticity.\nPremise1: In some animal species, no members ever display tameness.\nPremise2: Domesticated animals cannot be turned into wild species by breeding only those animals that display some wild characteristics.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Domesticated animals, such as dogs, have come into existence by the breeding of only the individuals of a wild species that are sufficiently tame. For example, if when breeding wolves one breeds only those that display tameness when young, then after a number of generations the offspring will be a species of dog. Statement3: Therefore, we can take the same approach to turning domesticated animals into wild species.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4204",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Domesticated animals cannot be turned into wild species by breeding only those animals that display some wild characteristics.",
            "O": "Premise1: In some animal species, no members ever display tameness.",
            "P": "Statement1: Domesticated animals, such as dogs, have come into existence by the breeding of only the individuals of a wild species that are sufficiently tame. For example, if when breeding wolves one breeds only those that display tameness when young, then after a number of generations the offspring will be a species of dog. Statement2: Therefore, all animals can, in principle, be bred for domesticity."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 brazil, side-by-side comparisons of africanized honeybees and the native honeybees have shown that the africanized bees are far superior honey producers. Statement2: Therefore, there is no reason to fear that domestic commercial honey production will decline in the united states if local honeybees are displaced by africanized honeybees.\nPremise1: If africanized honeybees replace local honeybees, certain types of ornamental trees will be less effectively pollinated.\nPremise2: In the united states a significant proportion of the commercial honey supply comes from hobby beekeepers, many of whom are likely to abandon beekeeping with the influx of africanized bees.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In brazil, side-by-side comparisons of africanized honeybees and the native honeybees have shown that the africanized bees are far superior honey producers. Statement2: Therefore, there is no reason to fear that domestic commercial honey production of professional beekeeper will decline in the united states if local honeybees are displaced by africanized honeybees.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2880",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, would weaken the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: In the united states a significant proportion of the commercial honey supply comes from hobby beekeepers, many of whom are likely to abandon beekeeping with the influx of africanized bees.",
            "O": "Premise1: If africanized honeybees replace local honeybees, certain types of ornamental trees will be less effectively pollinated.",
            "P": "Statement1: In brazil, side-by-side comparisons of africanized honeybees and the native honeybees have shown that the africanized bees are far superior honey producers. Statement2: Therefore, there is no reason to fear that domestic commercial honey production will decline in the united states if local honeybees are displaced by africanized honeybees."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 minoan civilization flourished on the island of crete around 2000 b. ( c ) the discovery on crete of large numbers of bronze implements and the furnaces used in their manufacture shows that the minoans had a thriving bronze industry. Statement2: Moreover, many bronze artifacts from this period that are similar in style to those produced on crete have been found in southern greece. Statement3: Hence it is probable that, besides making bronzeware for domestic use, the minoans exported bronzeware to southern greece.\nPremise1: No furnaces dating from the minoan era and suitable for the manufacture of bronze implements have been found in southern greece.\nPremise2: Copper and tin, the main ingredients of bronze, were present in southern greece.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The minoan civilization flourished on the island of crete around 2000 b. ( c ) the discovery on crete of large numbers of bronze implements and the furnaces used in their manufacture shows that the minoans had a thriving bronze industry. Statement2: But, many bronze artifacts from this period that are different in style to those produced on crete have been found in southern greece. Statement3: Hence it is probable that, besides the minoans who could make bronze, the tribes of southern greece could also make bronze.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_309",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Copper and tin, the main ingredients of bronze, were present in southern greece.",
            "O": "Premise1: No furnaces dating from the minoan era and suitable for the manufacture of bronze implements have been found in southern greece.",
            "P": "Statement1: The minoan civilization flourished on the island of crete around 2000 b. ( c ) the discovery on crete of large numbers of bronze implements and the furnaces used in their manufacture shows that the minoans had a thriving bronze industry. Statement2: Moreover, many bronze artifacts from this period that are similar in style to those produced on crete have been found in southern greece. Statement3: Hence it is probable that, besides making bronzeware for domestic use, the minoans exported bronzeware to southern greece."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: One of the effects of lead poisoning is an inflammation of the optic nerve, which causes those who have it to see bright haloes around light sources. In order to produce the striking yellow effects in his\" sunflowers\" paintings, van gogh used naples yellow, a pigment containing lead. Statement2: Since in his later paintings, van gogh painted bright haloes around the stars and sun, it is likely that he was suffering from lead poisoning caused by ingesting the pigments he used.\nPremise1: In van gogh's later paintings he painted some things as he saw them.\nPremise2: The effects of naples yellow could not have been achieved using other pigments.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: One of the effects of lead poisoning is an inflammation of the optic nerve, which causes those who have it to see bright haloes around light sources. In order to produce the striking yellow effects in his\" sunflowers\" paintings, van gogh used naples yellow, a pigment containing lead. Statement3: Since in his later paintings, van gogh had to continue using naples yellow to produce the striking yellow effects, it is likely that he was suffering from lead poisoning caused by the pigments he used.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3054",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The effects of naples yellow could not have been achieved using other pigments.",
            "O": "Premise1: In van gogh's later paintings he painted some things as he saw them.",
            "P": "Statement1: One of the effects of lead poisoning is an inflammation of the optic nerve, which causes those who have it to see bright haloes around light sources. In order to produce the striking yellow effects in his\" sunflowers\" paintings, van gogh used naples yellow, a pigment containing lead. Statement2: Since in his later paintings, van gogh painted bright haloes around the stars and sun, it is likely that he was suffering from lead poisoning caused by ingesting the pigments he used."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Novelists can not become great as long as they remain in academia. Statement2: Powers of observation and analysis, which schools successfully hone, are useful to the novelist, but an intuitive grasp of the emotions of everyday life can be obtained only by the kind of immersion in everyday life that is precluded by being an academic.\nPremise1: Novelists cannot be great without an intuitive grasp of the emotions of everyday life.\nPremise2: No great novelist lacks powers of observation and analysis.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Novelists can not become great as long as they remain in his own world of fantasy. Statement2: Powers of observation and analysis, which schools can't successfully hone, are useful to the novelist, and these ability can be obtained only by the kind of immersion in everyday life that is precluded by being an fantasy.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3236",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: No great novelist lacks powers of observation and analysis.",
            "O": "Premise1: Novelists cannot be great without an intuitive grasp of the emotions of everyday life.",
            "P": "Statement1: Novelists can not become great as long as they remain in academia. Statement2: Powers of observation and analysis, which schools successfully hone, are useful to the novelist, but an intuitive grasp of the emotions of everyday life can be obtained only by the kind of immersion in everyday life that is precluded by being an academic."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 gave 100 first-graders after-school lessons in handwriting. Statement2: They found that those whose composition skills had improved the most had learned to write letters the most automatically. Statement3: This suggests that producing characters more automatically frees up mental resources for other activities.\nPremise1: Over the course of the lessons, the first-graders who showed greater improvement in their ability to write letters automatically also generally showed greater improvement in their composition skills.\nPremise2: Among the first-graders who received the lessons in handwriting, those who started out with strong composition skills showed substantial improvement in how automatically they could write letters.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Researchers gave 100 first-graders after-school lessons in handwriting. Statement2: They found that those who had better composition skills had learned to write letters faster. Statement3: This suggests that composition skills more automatically frees up mental resources for other activities.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4476",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Among the first-graders who received the lessons in handwriting, those who started out with strong composition skills showed substantial improvement in how automatically they could write letters.",
            "O": "Premise1: Over the course of the lessons, the first-graders who showed greater improvement in their ability to write letters automatically also generally showed greater improvement in their composition skills.",
            "P": "Statement1: Researchers gave 100 first-graders after-school lessons in handwriting. Statement2: They found that those whose composition skills had improved the most had learned to write letters the most automatically. Statement3: This suggests that producing characters more automatically frees up mental resources for other activities."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Numerous paintings and engravings representing warfare can be found in remains of all civilizations going back to and including the neolithic period, when agriculture was first developed. Statement2: However, no paintings or engravings of warfare are found dating from before the neolithic period. Statement3: Therefore, warfare must have first developed as a result of the transition to an agricultural society.\nPremise1: There was no warfare prior to the period in which paintings and engravings of warfare were first created.\nPremise2: Warfare in the neolithic period was always motivated by territorial disputes over agricultural land.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Numerous paintings and engravings representing warfare can be found in remains of all civilizations going back to and including the neolithic period, when agriculture was first developed. Statement2: Meanwhile, most paintings or engravings of warfare are found that the battles took place in fields full of crops. Statement3: Therefore, warfare must have developed to seek for the transition to an agricultural society.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1298",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Warfare in the neolithic period was always motivated by territorial disputes over agricultural land.",
            "O": "Premise1: There was no warfare prior to the period in which paintings and engravings of warfare were first created.",
            "P": "Statement1: Numerous paintings and engravings representing warfare can be found in remains of all civilizations going back to and including the neolithic period, when agriculture was first developed. Statement2: However, no paintings or engravings of warfare are found dating from before the neolithic period. Statement3: Therefore, warfare must have first developed as a result of the transition to an agricultural society."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Researcher : the role of chemicals called pheromones in determining the sexual behavior of some animals is well documented. But, even though humans also produce these chemicals, it is clear that psychological factors have taken over this role in us. Statement2: Whereas for animals these behaviors are involuntary, which is a clear sign of chemical control, humans, by virtue of their free will, choose how they behave, and thus psychological factors take over. Statement3: So pheromones are merely a vestige of our evolutionary past.\nPremise1: Voluntary action cannot have a chemical explanation\nPremise2: Free will can be found only in humans\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Researcher : the role of chemicals called pheromones in determining the sexual behavior of some animals is well documented. But, even though humans also produce these chemicals, it is clear that psychological factors have taken over this role in us. Statement3: Whereas for animals these behaviors are involuntary, which can only be taken over by physiological factors, humans, by virtue of their free will, choose how they behave, and thus psychological factors take over. Statement4: So we humans are totally different from animals.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3170",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The researcher's argument requires the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Free will can be found only in humans",
            "O": "Premise1: Voluntary action cannot have a chemical explanation",
            "P": "Statement1: Researcher : the role of chemicals called pheromones in determining the sexual behavior of some animals is well documented. But, even though humans also produce these chemicals, it is clear that psychological factors have taken over this role in us. Statement2: Whereas for animals these behaviors are involuntary, which is a clear sign of chemical control, humans, by virtue of their free will, choose how they behave, and thus psychological factors take over. Statement3: So pheromones are merely a vestige of our evolutionary past."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Commentator : the theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country 's markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. Statement2: If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any other.\nPremise1: For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.\nPremise2: Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Commentator : the theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country 's markets should close some of their own markets to the other country or pressure the other country to reopen its markets by other means. Statement2: This approach makes some sense, to some extent, to protect one's economy from being hit by another country..",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_971",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The commentator's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Countries close their markets to foreigners to protect domestic producers.",
            "O": "Premise1: For any two countries, at least one has some market closed to the other.",
            "P": "Statement1: Commentator : the theory of trade retaliation states that countries closed out of any of another country 's markets should close some of their own markets to the other country in order to pressure the other country to reopen its markets. Statement2: If every country acted according to this theory, no country would trade with any 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: Most plants have developed chemical defenses against parasites. Humans ingest these natural pesticides without harm every day. Statement2: The average plant contains about 40 natural pesticides -- chemical compounds toxic to bacteria, fungi, and other parasites. Statement3: Therefore, the additional threat posed by synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans is minimal.\nPremise1: The synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans usually have chemical structures similar to those of the natural pesticides produced by the plants.\nPremise2: Natural plant pesticides generally serve only as defenses against specific parasites, whereas synthetic pesticides are often harmful to a wide variety of organisms.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Most plants have developed chemical defenses against parasites. Humans ingest these natural pesticides without harm every day. Statement2: The average plant contains about 40 natural pesticides -- chemical compounds toxic to bacteria, fungi, and other parasites. Statement4: Therefore, the additional threat posed by synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans is maximal.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1648",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Natural plant pesticides generally serve only as defenses against specific parasites, whereas synthetic pesticides are often harmful to a wide variety of organisms.",
            "O": "Premise1: The synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans usually have chemical structures similar to those of the natural pesticides produced by the plants.",
            "P": "Statement1: Most plants have developed chemical defenses against parasites. Humans ingest these natural pesticides without harm every day. Statement2: The average plant contains about 40 natural pesticides -- chemical compounds toxic to bacteria, fungi, and other parasites. Statement3: Therefore, the additional threat posed by synthetic pesticides sprayed on crop plants by humans is minimal."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Scientific and technological discoveries have considerable effects on the development of any society. Statement2: It follows that predictions of the future condition of societies in which scientific and technological discovery is particularly frequent are particularly untrustworthy.\nPremise1: Forecasts of scientific and technological discoveries, or forecasts of their effects, are not entirely reliable.\nPremise2: The development of a society requires scientific and technological discoveries.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Scientific and technological discoveries have considerable good effects on the development of any society. Statement2: It follows that the more discovered a society is in science and technology, the more developed it is.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1715",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The development of a society requires scientific and technological discoveries.",
            "O": "Premise1: Forecasts of scientific and technological discoveries, or forecasts of their effects, are not entirely reliable.",
            "P": "Statement1: Scientific and technological discoveries have considerable effects on the development of any society. Statement2: It follows that predictions of the future condition of societies in which scientific and technological discovery is particularly frequent are particularly untrustworthy."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Quillium is the most popular blood pressure regulating prescription drug on the market. Giant pharma, inc., the largest prescription drug manufacturer in the country, owns the patent on quillium. Giant pharma stock is hitting unprecedented high valuations. Statement2: As a result, quillium is by far the most effective drug available in treating irregular blood pressure.\nPremise1: The most lucrative and popular pharmaceuticals are not always the most effective.\nPremise2: Giant pharma's high stock prices are attributable to recent patent acquisitions other than quillium.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Quillium is the most effective blood pressure regulating prescription drug on the market. Giant pharma, inc., the largest prescription drug manufacturer in the country, owns the patent on quillium. Giant pharma stock is hitting unprecedented high valuations. Statement4: Because quillium is by far the most popular drug available in treating irregular blood pressure for its best effect.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_754",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Giant pharma's high stock prices are attributable to recent patent acquisitions other than quillium.",
            "O": "Premise1: The most lucrative and popular pharmaceuticals are not always the most effective.",
            "P": "Statement1: Quillium is the most popular blood pressure regulating prescription drug on the market. Giant pharma, inc., the largest prescription drug manufacturer in the country, owns the patent on quillium. Giant pharma stock is hitting unprecedented high valuations. Statement2: As a result, quillium is by far the most effective drug available in treating irregular blood pressure."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of salty food. Yet if one feeds a one-year-old salty food rather than sweet food, then over a period of about a year he or she will develop a taste for the salty flavor and choose to eat salty food rather than sweet food. Statement2: Thus, a young child's taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to.\nPremise1: Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food.\nPremise2: A child's taste preferences usually change between age one and age two.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of salty food. Yet if one feeds a two-year-old salty food or sweet food, most often they choose to eat salty food rather than sweet food. Statement3: Thus, a young child's taste preferences can't be identified during the age from 1 to 2 years old.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1685",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A child's taste preferences usually change between age one and age two.",
            "O": "Premise1: Two-year-olds do not naturally prefer salty food to sweet food.",
            "P": "Statement1: One-year-olds ordinarily prefer the taste of sweet food to that of salty food. Yet if one feeds a one-year-old salty food rather than sweet food, then over a period of about a year he or she will develop a taste for the salty flavor and choose to eat salty food rather than sweet food. Statement2: Thus, a young child's taste preferences can be affected by the type of food he or she has been exposed to."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 the nation of partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks-those with three trailers-had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, one way for partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.\nPremise1: So far only the best, most experienced drivers for partorian trucking companies have been driving triple-trailer trucks.\nPremise2: Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in partoria are collisions between two trucks.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In the nation of partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. But almost in every cases, the drivers of large trucks drive trucks normally. Statement3: Although so, someone still suggests that one way for partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to decrease their use of large trucks.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3949",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in partoria are collisions between two trucks.",
            "O": "Premise1: So far only the best, most experienced drivers for partorian trucking companies have been driving triple-trailer trucks.",
            "P": "Statement1: In the nation of partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks-those with three trailers-had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, one way for partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Advertisement : at most jewelry stores, the person assessing the diamond is the person selling it, so you can see why an assessor might say that a diamond is of higher quality than it really is. Statement2: But because all diamonds sold at gem world are certified in writing, you're assured of a fair price when purchasing a diamond from gem world.\nPremise1: The written certifications of diamonds at gem world are provided by an independent company of gem specialists.\nPremise2: The diamonds sold at gem world are generally of higher quality than those sold at other jewelry stores.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Advertisement : at most jewelry stores, the person assessing the diamond is the person selling it, so you can see why an assessor might say that a diamond is of higher quality than it really is. Statement2: But because all diamonds sold at gem world are certified in writing from other independent companies, you're assured that with a same price, you can buy a better diamond from gem world.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2996",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The reasoning in the advertisement would be most strengthened if which one of the following were true?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The diamonds sold at gem world are generally of higher quality than those sold at other jewelry stores.",
            "O": "Premise1: The written certifications of diamonds at gem world are provided by an independent company of gem specialists.",
            "P": "Statement1: Advertisement : at most jewelry stores, the person assessing the diamond is the person selling it, so you can see why an assessor might say that a diamond is of higher quality than it really is. Statement2: But because all diamonds sold at gem world are certified in writing, you're assured of a fair price when purchasing a diamond from gem world."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: We are in a new industrial revolution that requires management trainees to develop\" action learning\" from real experience within business and industry, rather than getting tied up with theory and academia. Statement2: Business schools seem unable, on their own, to tear themselves away from their largely academic roots and move closer to the realities of today's business and industry ; too often, trainees in business schools find themselves studying hypothetical cases instead of real ones. Furthermore, business schools have been slow to respond to the needs of business. Statement3: Therefore, business schools should allow business executives to set curricula for management trainees that could then be taught by academics.\nPremise1: Today's business executives have valuable insight into business that academics in business schools do not have.\nPremise2: Academics are not capable of teaching curricula suitable for relevant management training.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: We are in a new industrial revolution that requires management trainees to develop\" action learning\" from real experience within business and industry, rather than getting tied up with theory and academia. Statement2: Business schools seem unable, on their own, to tear themselves away from their largely academic roots and move closer to the realities of today's business and industry ; too often, trainees in business schools find themselves studying hypothetical cases instead of real ones. Furthermore, business schools have been slow to respond to the needs of business. Statement4: Therefore, business schools should allow business executives to set curricula for management trainees that should then be taught by business executives.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2113",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Academics are not capable of teaching curricula suitable for relevant management training.",
            "O": "Premise1: Today's business executives have valuable insight into business that academics in business schools do not have.",
            "P": "Statement1: We are in a new industrial revolution that requires management trainees to develop\" action learning\" from real experience within business and industry, rather than getting tied up with theory and academia. Statement2: Business schools seem unable, on their own, to tear themselves away from their largely academic roots and move closer to the realities of today's business and industry ; too often, trainees in business schools find themselves studying hypothetical cases instead of real ones. Furthermore, business schools have been slow to respond to the needs of business. Statement3: Therefore, business schools should allow business executives to set curricula for management trainees that could then be taught by academics."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Citizen : our legislators need to act quickly to counter the effects of the recession, especially the present level of unemployment, which is the highest ever. Statement2: We urgently need a major tax cut for our upper-income citizens. There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs. Statement3: If this measure is not taken, investment will not grow.\nPremise1: Upper-income citizens could use the money gained from the tax cut in ways that increase investment\nPremise2: The greater the tax cut given to a group of people, the more likely it is that members of that group will invest the money\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Citizen : our legislators need to act quickly to counter the effects of the recession, especially the present level of unemployment, which is the highest ever. Statement2: We urgently need a major tax cut for our citizens. There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs. Statement4: If this measure is not taken, investment might not grow.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4415",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The citizen's argument depends on the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: The greater the tax cut given to a group of people, the more likely it is that members of that group will invest the money",
            "O": "Premise1: Upper-income citizens could use the money gained from the tax cut in ways that increase investment",
            "P": "Statement1: Citizen : our legislators need to act quickly to counter the effects of the recession, especially the present level of unemployment, which is the highest ever. Statement2: We urgently need a major tax cut for our upper-income citizens. There would then be a correspondingly large increase in investment that would create new jobs. Statement3: If this measure is not taken, investment will not grow."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 use of growth-promoting antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their effectiveness in treating humans because such use can spread resistance to those antibiotics among microorganisms. Statement2: But now the smee company, one of the largest pork marketers, may stop buying pork raised on feed containing these antibiotics. Statement3: Smee has 60 percent of the pork market, and farmers who sell to smee would certainly stop using antibiotics in order to avoid jeopardizing their sales. Statement4: So if smee makes this change, it will probably significantly slow the decline in antibiotics'effectiveness for humans.\nPremise1: Other major pork marketers will probably stop buying pork raised on feed containing growth-promoting antibiotics if smee no longer buys such pork.\nPremise2: The decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can be offset by improved hygiene.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The use of growth-promoting antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their effectiveness in treating humans because such use can spread resistance to those antibiotics among microorganisms. Statement2: But now the smee company, one of the largest pork marketers, may stop buying pork raised on feed containing these antibiotics. Statement3: Smee has 99 percent of the pork market, and farmers who sell to smee would certainly stop using antibiotics in order to avoid jeopardizing their sales without decreasing the supply of pork. Statement4: So if smee makes this change, it will probably significantly slow the decline in antibiotics'effectiveness for humans.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4392",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The decline in hog growth due to discontinuation of antibiotics can be offset by improved hygiene.",
            "O": "Premise1: Other major pork marketers will probably stop buying pork raised on feed containing growth-promoting antibiotics if smee no longer buys such pork.",
            "P": "Statement1: The use of growth-promoting antibiotics in hog farming can weaken their effectiveness in treating humans because such use can spread resistance to those antibiotics among microorganisms. Statement2: But now the smee company, one of the largest pork marketers, may stop buying pork raised on feed containing these antibiotics. Statement3: Smee has 60 percent of the pork market, and farmers who sell to smee would certainly stop using antibiotics in order to avoid jeopardizing their sales. Statement4: So if smee makes this change, it will probably significantly slow the decline in antibiotics'effectiveness for humans."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Economist : our economy's weakness is the direct result of consumers'continued reluctance to spend, which in turn is caused by factors such as high-priced goods and services. Statement2: This reluctance is exacerbated by the fact that the average income is significantly lower than it was five years ago. Statement3: Thus, even though it is not a perfect solution, if the government were to lower income taxes, the economy would improve.\nPremise1: Consumers will be less reluctant to spend money if income taxes are lowered.\nPremise2: Increasing consumer spending will cause prices for goods and services to decrease.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Economist : our economy's weakness is the direct result of consumers'continued reluctance to spend, which in turn is caused by factors such as high-priced goods and services. Statement2: This reluctance is exacerbated by the fact that the average income tax is significantly higher than it was five years ago. Statement3: Thus, even though it is not a perfect solution, if the government were to lower income taxes, with more income available for consumption, economy would improve.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_474",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the economist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Increasing consumer spending will cause prices for goods and services to decrease.",
            "O": "Premise1: Consumers will be less reluctant to spend money if income taxes are lowered.",
            "P": "Statement1: Economist : our economy's weakness is the direct result of consumers'continued reluctance to spend, which in turn is caused by factors such as high-priced goods and services. Statement2: This reluctance is exacerbated by the fact that the average income is significantly lower than it was five years ago. Statement3: Thus, even though it is not a perfect solution, if the government were to lower income taxes, the economy would improve."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Farmer : worldwide, just three grain crops-rice, wheat, and corn-account for most human caloric intake. Statement2: To maintain this level of caloric intake and also keep pace with global population growth, yields per acre from each of these crops will have to increase at least 1.5 percent every year, given that the supply of cultivated land is diminishing. Statement3: Therefore, the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields\nPremise1: Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops\nPremise2: Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Farmer : worldwide, just three grain crops-rice, wheat, and corn-account for most human caloric intake. Statement2: To maintain this level of caloric intake and also keep pace with global population growth, yields per acre from each of these crops will have to increase at least 1.5 percent every year, given that the supply of cultivated land is diminishing. Statement3: Therefore, the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields of these three grain crops and decrease the funding for other grain crops for tight funding.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4113",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the farmers argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Increasing the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn is more important than increasing the yields per acre of other crops",
            "O": "Premise1: Increasing government funding for research into new ways to improve the yields per acre of rice, wheat, and corn crops would help to increase total worldwide annual production of food from these crops",
            "P": "Statement1: Farmer : worldwide, just three grain crops-rice, wheat, and corn-account for most human caloric intake. Statement2: To maintain this level of caloric intake and also keep pace with global population growth, yields per acre from each of these crops will have to increase at least 1.5 percent every year, given that the supply of cultivated land is diminishing. Statement3: Therefore, the government should increase funding for research into new ways to improve yields"
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Asbestos, an almost indestructible mineral once installed as building insulation, poses no health risk unless the asbestos is disturbed and asbestos fibers are released into the environment. Statement2: Since removing asbestos from buildings disturbs it, thereby releasing asbestos fibers, the government should not require removal of all asbestos insulation.\nPremise1: Much of the time, removed asbestos is buried in landfills and forgotten, with no guarantee that it will not be disturbed again.\nPremise2: Asbestos poses far less risk to health than does smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, improper diet, or lack of exercise.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Asbestos, an almost indestructible mineral once installed as building insulation, poses little health risk if the asbestos is disturbed and asbestos fibers are released into the environment. Statement2: Although removing asbestos from buildings disturbs it, thereby releasing asbestos fibers, the government could require removal of all asbestos insulation.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4526",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Asbestos poses far less risk to health than does smoking, drug and alcohol abuse, improper diet, or lack of exercise.",
            "O": "Premise1: Much of the time, removed asbestos is buried in landfills and forgotten, with no guarantee that it will not be disturbed again.",
            "P": "Statement1: Asbestos, an almost indestructible mineral once installed as building insulation, poses no health risk unless the asbestos is disturbed and asbestos fibers are released into the environment. Statement2: Since removing asbestos from buildings disturbs it, thereby releasing asbestos fibers, the government should not require removal of all asbestos insulation."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Overexposure to certain wavelengths of strong sunlight is the main cause of melanoma, a virulent form of skin cancer. Adequate sunblock, according to doctors, is any preparation that prevents sunburn even if the person is exposed to strong sunlight for a significant length of time. Statement2: For this reason, doctors now urge everyone to put adequate sunblock on skin exposed to strong sunlight.\nPremise1: There is no evidence that there are wavelengths of sunlight that lead to both sunburn and melanoma.\nPremise2: There are people who have allergic reactions to certain chemicals found in many sunblocks.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Repeated exposures to strong sunlight is the main cause of melanoma, a virulent form of skin cancer. Adequate sunblock, according to doctors, is any preparation that prevents melanoma even if the person is exposed to strong sunlight for a significant length of time. Statement2: For this reason, doctors now urge everyone to put adequate sunblock on skin exposed to strong sunlight.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4050",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the recommendation that people wear adequate sunblock?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There are people who have allergic reactions to certain chemicals found in many sunblocks.",
            "O": "Premise1: There is no evidence that there are wavelengths of sunlight that lead to both sunburn and melanoma.",
            "P": "Statement1: Overexposure to certain wavelengths of strong sunlight is the main cause of melanoma, a virulent form of skin cancer. Adequate sunblock, according to doctors, is any preparation that prevents sunburn even if the person is exposed to strong sunlight for a significant length of time. Statement2: For this reason, doctors now urge everyone to put adequate sunblock on skin exposed to strong sunlight."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Essayist : one of the claims of laissez-faire economics is that increasing the minimum wage reduces the total number of minimum-wage jobs available. Statement2: In a recent study, however, it was found that after an increase in the minimum wage, fast-food restaurants kept on roughly the same number of minimum-wage employees as before the increase. Statement3: Therefore, laissez-faire economics is not entirely accurate.\nPremise1: Minimum-wage job availability at fast-food restaurants included in the study was representative of minimum-wage job availability in general.\nPremise2: The national unemployment rate did not increase following the increase in the minimum wage.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Essayist : one of the claims of laissez-faire economics is that increasing the minimum wage reduces the total number of minimum-wage jobs available. Statement2: In a recent study, however, it was found that after an increase in the minimum wage, various industries of the nation kept on roughly the same number of minimum-wage employees as before the increase. Statement3: Therefore, laissez-faire economics is not accurate.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_377",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The essayist's argument depends on assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The national unemployment rate did not increase following the increase in the minimum wage.",
            "O": "Premise1: Minimum-wage job availability at fast-food restaurants included in the study was representative of minimum-wage job availability in general.",
            "P": "Statement1: Essayist : one of the claims of laissez-faire economics is that increasing the minimum wage reduces the total number of minimum-wage jobs available. Statement2: In a recent study, however, it was found that after an increase in the minimum wage, fast-food restaurants kept on roughly the same number of minimum-wage employees as before the increase. Statement3: Therefore, laissez-faire economics is not entirely accurate."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Emissions from automobiles that burn gasoline and automobiles that burn diesel fuel are threatening the quality of life on our planet, contaminating both urban air and global atmosphere. Statement2: Therefore, the only effective way to reduce such emissions is to replace the conventional diesel fuel and gasoline used in automobiles with cleaner-burning fuels, such as methanol, that create fewer emissions.\nPremise1: Reducing the use of automobiles would not be a more effective means to reduce automobile emissions than the use of methanol.\nPremise2: Automobile emissions constitute the most serious threat to the global environment.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Emissions from automobiles that burn gasoline and automobiles that burn diesel fuel are threatening the quality of life on our planet, contaminating both urban air and global atmosphere. Statement2: Therefore, it's urgent for us to obey the effective way to reduce such emissions like riding a bike or walking as possible as one can instead of driving a car, which creates no emissions.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1375",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Automobile emissions constitute the most serious threat to the global environment.",
            "O": "Premise1: Reducing the use of automobiles would not be a more effective means to reduce automobile emissions than the use of methanol.",
            "P": "Statement1: Emissions from automobiles that burn gasoline and automobiles that burn diesel fuel are threatening the quality of life on our planet, contaminating both urban air and global atmosphere. Statement2: Therefore, the only effective way to reduce such emissions is to replace the conventional diesel fuel and gasoline used in automobiles with cleaner-burning fuels, such as methanol, that create fewer emissions."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Most banks that issue credit cards charge interest rates on credit card debt that are ten percentage points higher than the rates those banks charge for ordinary consumer loans. These banks'representatives claim the difference is fully justified, since it simply covers the difference between the costs to these banks associated with credit card debt and those associated with consumer loans.\nPremise1: Two to three percent of the selling price of every item bought with a given credit card goes to the bank that issued that credit card.\nPremise2: Most car rental companies require that their customers provide signed credit card charge slips or security deposits.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Most banks that issue credit cards charge interest rates on credit card debt that are ten percentage points higher than the rates those banks charge for ordinary consumer loans. These banks'representatives claim the difference is fully justified, since credit card spending has few limits in daily life.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3683",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the reasoning offered by the banks' representatives?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most car rental companies require that their customers provide signed credit card charge slips or security deposits.",
            "O": "Premise1: Two to three percent of the selling price of every item bought with a given credit card goes to the bank that issued that credit card.",
            "P": "Statement1: Most banks that issue credit cards charge interest rates on credit card debt that are ten percentage points higher than the rates those banks charge for ordinary consumer loans. These banks'representatives claim the difference is fully justified, since it simply covers the difference between the costs to these banks associated with credit card debt and those associated with consumer loans."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry 's ability to operate safely. Statement2: However, environmentalists contend that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.\nPremise1: Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.\nPremise2: There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done something to impair the industry 's ability to operate safely. Statement2: It's true, environmentalists prove that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_1112",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by industry officials?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.",
            "O": "Premise1: Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.",
            "P": "Statement1: Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry 's ability to operate safely. Statement2: However, environmentalists contend that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Private industry is trying to attract skilled research scientists by offering them high salaries. Statement2: As a result, most research scientists employed in private industry now earn 50 percent more than do comparably skilled research scientists employed by the government. Statement3: So, unless government-employed research scientists are motivated more by a sense of public duty than by their own interests, the government is likely to lose its most skilled research scientists to private industry, since none of these scientists would have problems finding private-sector jobs.\nPremise1: The government does not provide its research scientists with unusually good working conditions or fringe benefits that more than compensate for the lower salaries they receive.\nPremise2: Research scientists employed in the private sector generally work longer hours than do researchers employed by the government.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Private industry is trying to attract skilled research scientists by offering them higher salaries. Statement2: But, most research scientists employed in private industry with a harder work now earn only 5 percent more than do comparably skilled research scientists employed by the government. Statement3: So, , the government isn't likely to lose its most skilled research scientists to private industry, although none of these scientists would have problems finding private-sector jobs.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3133",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Research scientists employed in the private sector generally work longer hours than do researchers employed by the government.",
            "O": "Premise1: The government does not provide its research scientists with unusually good working conditions or fringe benefits that more than compensate for the lower salaries they receive.",
            "P": "Statement1: Private industry is trying to attract skilled research scientists by offering them high salaries. Statement2: As a result, most research scientists employed in private industry now earn 50 percent more than do comparably skilled research scientists employed by the government. Statement3: So, unless government-employed research scientists are motivated more by a sense of public duty than by their own interests, the government is likely to lose its most skilled research scientists to private industry, since none of these scientists would have problems finding private-sector jobs."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Teacher to a student : you agree that it is bad to break promises. Statement2: But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. Statement3: So even if you promised jeanne that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well.\nPremise1: Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.\nPremise2: Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Teacher to a student : you agree that it is bad to break promises. Statement2: Although when we speak to each other we should tell the truth, a white lie is sometimes keeping that promise. Statement3: So if you promised jeanne that you wouldn't tell me she hates me, you should not tell me that, if you know that she does.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_196",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling a lie.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some implicit promises are worse to break than some explicit ones.",
            "P": "Statement1: Teacher to a student : you agree that it is bad to break promises. Statement2: But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. Statement3: So even if you promised jeanne that you would tell me she is home sick, you should not tell me that, if you know that she is well."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 scientist : some analysts point to the government's acceptance of the recent protest rally as proof that the government supports freedom of popular expression. Statement2: But the government supports no such thing. Statement3: Supporting freedom of popular expression means accepting the expression of ideas that the government opposes as well as the expression of ideas that the government supports. Statement4: The message of the protest rally was one that the government entirely supports.\nPremise1: The government would not have accepted a protest rally whose message it opposed.\nPremise2: The message of the recent protest rally did not concern any function of the government.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Political scientist : some analysts point to the government's acceptance of the recent protest rally as proof that the government supports freedom of popular expression. Statement2: But the government supports no such thing. Statement3: Supporting freedom of popular expression means accepting the expression of ideas that is about the function of government as well as the expression of ideas that isn't about the function of government. Statement4: The government only supports the latter one.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_305",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption that is required by the political scientist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The message of the recent protest rally did not concern any function of the government.",
            "O": "Premise1: The government would not have accepted a protest rally whose message it opposed.",
            "P": "Statement1: Political scientist : some analysts point to the government's acceptance of the recent protest rally as proof that the government supports freedom of popular expression. Statement2: But the government supports no such thing. Statement3: Supporting freedom of popular expression means accepting the expression of ideas that the government opposes as well as the expression of ideas that the government supports. Statement4: The message of the protest rally was one that the government entirely supports."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Eva : a\" smart highway\" system should be installed, one that would monitor areawide traffic patterns and communicate with computers in vehicles or with programmable highway signs to give drivers information about traffic congestion and alternate routes. Statement2: Such a system, we can infer, would result in improved traffic flow in and around cities that would do more than improve drivers'tempers ; it would decrease the considerable loss of money and productivity that now results from traffic congestion. Statement3: Louis : there are already traffic reports on the radio. Statement4: Why would a\" smart highway\" system be any better? .\nPremise1: Traffic flow in and around cities is not now so congested that significant improvement is impossible\nPremise2: Older vehicles could not be fitted with equipment to receive signals sent by a \"smart highway\" system\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Eva : a\" smart highway\" system should not be installed Statement2: Such a system, we can infer that only newer vehicles can be equipped with that receiving equipment. Statement3: Louis : there are already traffic reports on the radio. Statement4: Why would a\" smart highway\" system be any better? .",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4587",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Eva's argument depends on the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: Older vehicles could not be fitted with equipment to receive signals sent by a \"smart highway\" system",
            "O": "Premise1: Traffic flow in and around cities is not now so congested that significant improvement is impossible",
            "P": "Statement1: Eva : a\" smart highway\" system should be installed, one that would monitor areawide traffic patterns and communicate with computers in vehicles or with programmable highway signs to give drivers information about traffic congestion and alternate routes. Statement2: Such a system, we can infer, would result in improved traffic flow in and around cities that would do more than improve drivers'tempers ; it would decrease the considerable loss of money and productivity that now results from traffic congestion. Statement3: Louis : there are already traffic reports on the radio. Statement4: Why would a\" smart highway\" system be any better? ."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Psychologist : satisfaction and happiness with one's family can not exist unless families have established strong values of mutual trust, love, and respect. Statement2: Such bonds are formed and strengthened only through making these key values the basis for all actions within the family. Statement3: It is obvious then that widespread reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment has an inherently corrosive effect on one's family life.\nPremise1: People who rely on movies and electronic information for entertainment are unable to form strong values of trust, love, and respect with their families.\nPremise2: Newspapers and other forms of print media strengthen, rather than weaken, family values.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Psychologist : satisfaction and happiness with one's family can not exist unless families have established strong values of mutual trust, love, and respect. Statement2: Such bonds are formed and strengthened only through making these key values the basis for all actions within the family. Statement3: It is obvious then that newspapers and other forms of print media have an inherently positive effect on one's family life.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_861",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the psychiatrist's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Newspapers and other forms of print media strengthen, rather than weaken, family values.",
            "O": "Premise1: People who rely on movies and electronic information for entertainment are unable to form strong values of trust, love, and respect with their families.",
            "P": "Statement1: Psychologist : satisfaction and happiness with one's family can not exist unless families have established strong values of mutual trust, love, and respect. Statement2: Such bonds are formed and strengthened only through making these key values the basis for all actions within the family. Statement3: It is obvious then that widespread reliance on movies and electronic media for entertainment has an inherently corrosive effect on one's family life."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Last year, mayor stephens established a special law-enforcement task force with the avowed mission of eradicating corruption in city government. The mayor's handpicked task force has now begun prosecuting a dozen city officials. Statement2: Since all of these officials were appointed by mayor bixby, mayor stephens'predecessor and longtime political foe, it is clear that those being prosecuted have been targeted because of their political affiliations.\nPremise1: Almost all of the officials who have served in city government for any length of time are appointees of mayor bixby.\nPremise2: All of the members of the anticorruption task force had other jobs in city government before the task force was formed.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Last year, mayor stephens established a special law-enforcement task force with the avowed mission of eradicating corruption in city government. The mayor's handpicked task force has now begun prosecuting a dozen city officials. Statement3: Since none of these public officials had a beneficial relationship with the anticorruption task force, it is clear that these prosecutions were fair.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2709",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most weakens the editorial's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: All of the members of the anticorruption task force had other jobs in city government before the task force was formed.",
            "O": "Premise1: Almost all of the officials who have served in city government for any length of time are appointees of mayor bixby.",
            "P": "Statement1: Last year, mayor stephens established a special law-enforcement task force with the avowed mission of eradicating corruption in city government. The mayor's handpicked task force has now begun prosecuting a dozen city officials. Statement2: Since all of these officials were appointed by mayor bixby, mayor stephens'predecessor and longtime political foe, it is clear that those being prosecuted have been targeted because of their political affiliations."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of treatment for individuals experiencing problematic levels of anxiety. Statement2: Yet studies show that on average, regardless of which form of treatment one receives, symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within the short-term-training time period. Statement3: Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted.\nPremise1: Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.\nPremise2: A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a mental health professional.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of treatment for individuals experiencing problematic levels of anxiety. Statement2: Yet studies show that on average, if one received a longer the relaxation training, symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within a shorter time. Statement3: Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is necessary.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1677",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A decrease in symptoms of anxiety often occurs even with no treatment or intervention by a mental health professional.",
            "O": "Premise1: Recipients of long-term training are much less likely than recipients of short-term training to have recurrences of problematic levels of anxiety.",
            "P": "Statement1: Long-term and short-term relaxation training are two common forms of treatment for individuals experiencing problematic levels of anxiety. Statement2: Yet studies show that on average, regardless of which form of treatment one receives, symptoms of anxiety decrease to a normal level within the short-term-training time period. Statement3: Thus, for most people the generally more expensive long-term training is unwarranted."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. Statement2: There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. Statement3: It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.\nPremise1: Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.\nPremise2: Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. Statement2: There is no system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, only by accepting official tests can they be verified by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is going to be tested. Statement4: Without access to fellow scientists, it only will be exposed when other scientists officially conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4095",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.",
            "O": "Premise1: Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated.",
            "P": "Statement1: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before being published. Statement2: There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation of scientific findings, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. Statement3: It will be exposed and rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain disconfirmatory results."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 public is well aware that high blood cholesterol levels raise the risk of stroke caused by blood clots. Statement2: But a recent report concludes that people with low blood cholesterol levels are at increased risk of the other lethal type of stroke -- cerebral hemorrhage, caused when a brain artery bursts. The report suggests that because blood cholesterol plays a vital role in maintaining cell membranes, low blood cholesterol weakens artery walls, making them prone to rupture. Statement3: The conclusion thus supports a long-standing contention by japanese researchers that western diets better protect against cerebral hemorrhage than do non-western diets.\nPremise1: Western diets result in higher blood cholesterol levels than do non-western diets.\nPremise2: High blood cholesterol levels preclude the weakening of artery walls.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The public is well aware that high blood cholesterol levels raise the risk of stroke caused by blood clots. Statement2: But a recent report concludes that people with low blood cholesterol levels are at increased risk of the other lethal type of stroke -- cerebral hemorrhage, caused when a brain artery bursts. The report suggests that because blood cholesterol plays a vital role in maintaining cell membranes, low blood cholesterol weakens artery walls, making them prone to rupture. Statement4: The conclusion thus supports a long-standing contention by japanese researchers that proper higher blood cholesterol levels will reduce the risk of cerebral hemorrhage.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4203",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: High blood cholesterol levels preclude the weakening of artery walls.",
            "O": "Premise1: Western diets result in higher blood cholesterol levels than do non-western diets.",
            "P": "Statement1: The public is well aware that high blood cholesterol levels raise the risk of stroke caused by blood clots. Statement2: But a recent report concludes that people with low blood cholesterol levels are at increased risk of the other lethal type of stroke -- cerebral hemorrhage, caused when a brain artery bursts. The report suggests that because blood cholesterol plays a vital role in maintaining cell membranes, low blood cholesterol weakens artery walls, making them prone to rupture. Statement3: The conclusion thus supports a long-standing contention by japanese researchers that western diets better protect against cerebral hemorrhage than do non-western diets."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Motor oil serves to lubricate engines and thus retard engine wear. Statement2: A study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of various brands of motor oil by using them in taxicabs over a 6,000-mile test period. All the oils did equally well in retarding wear on pistons and cylinders, the relevant parts of the engine. Statement3: Hence, cheaper brands of oil are the best buys.\nPremise1: Ability to retard engine wear is not the only property of motor oil important to the running of an engine.\nPremise2: Cheaper brands of motor oil are often used by knowledgeable automobile mechanics for their own cars.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Motor oil serves to lubricate engines and thus retard engine wear. Statement2: A study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of various brands of motor oil by using them in taxicabs over a 6,000-mile test period. Expensive oils did far more better in retarding wear on pistons and cylinders, the relevant parts of the engine than cheap ones that have little effect. Statement4: Hence, cheap brands of oil might not ofen be used to protect cars.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2912",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Cheaper brands of motor oil are often used by knowledgeable automobile mechanics for their own cars.",
            "O": "Premise1: Ability to retard engine wear is not the only property of motor oil important to the running of an engine.",
            "P": "Statement1: Motor oil serves to lubricate engines and thus retard engine wear. Statement2: A study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of various brands of motor oil by using them in taxicabs over a 6,000-mile test period. All the oils did equally well in retarding wear on pistons and cylinders, the relevant parts of the engine. Statement3: Hence, cheaper brands of oil are the best buys."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 earth 's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the oceans to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the earth 's oceans can be accurately estimated.\nPremise1: The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the earth's oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years\nPremise2: There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the earth's oceans\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The earth 's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the oceans to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the earth 's oceans can be estimated better in every way.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2948",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There is no method superior to that based on salt levels for estimating the maximum age of the earth's oceans",
            "O": "Premise1: The quantities of dissolved salts deposited by rivers in the earth's oceans have not been unusually large during the past hundred years",
            "P": "Statement1: The earth 's rivers constantly carry dissolved salts into its oceans. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, by taking the resulting increase in salt levels in the oceans over the past hundred years and then determining how many centuries of such increases it would have taken the oceans to reach current salt levels from a hypothetical initial salt-free state, the maximum age of the earth 's oceans can be accurately estimated."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Deep tillage is even more deleterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed. For example, farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods. Statement2: Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead.\nPremise1: Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option.\nPremise2: Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Deep tillage to a large extent is even more deleterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed. For example, farmers who till very deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods. Statement3: Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should change the depth of their tillage to avoid excessive topsoil loss.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_3932",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Topsoil erosion does not make farmers want to till more deeply.",
            "O": "Premise1: Tilling by any method other than deep tillage is not a viable option.",
            "P": "Statement1: Deep tillage is even more deleterious to the world's topsoil supply than previously believed. For example, farmers who till deeply are ten times more likely to lose topsoil to erosion than are farmers who use no-till methods. Statement2: Results like these make it clear that farmers who now till deeply should strive, by using other topsoil aeration techniques, to incorporate no-till methods instead."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Organization president : the stationery and envelopes used in all of the mailings from our national headquarters are made from recycled paper, and we never put anything but letters in the envelopes. When the envelopes have windows, these windows are also made from recycled material. Statement2: Therefore the envelopes, and thus these mailings, are completely recyclable.\nPremise1: The envelope windows made from recycled material are recyclable.\nPremise2: The mailings from the organization's national headquarters always use envelopes that have windows.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Organization president : the stationery and envelopes used in all of the mailings from our national headquarters are made from recycled paper, and we never put anything but letters in the envelopes. But when the envelopes have windows, these windows are not made from recycled material. Statement3: Therefore the envelopes, except for the mail from the national headquarters, are completely recyclable.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1388",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the organization president's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The mailings from the organization's national headquarters always use envelopes that have windows.",
            "O": "Premise1: The envelope windows made from recycled material are recyclable.",
            "P": "Statement1: Organization president : the stationery and envelopes used in all of the mailings from our national headquarters are made from recycled paper, and we never put anything but letters in the envelopes. When the envelopes have windows, these windows are also made from recycled material. Statement2: Therefore the envelopes, and thus these mailings, are completely recyclable."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Psychologists recently conducted a study in which people from widely disparate cultures were asked to examine five photographs. Statement2: Each photograph depicted the face of a person expressing one of five basic human emotions -- fear, happiness, disgust, anger, and sadness. The people in the study were asked to identify the emotion being expressed in each photograph. Statement3: For each photograph, everyone identified the same emotion. Statement4: This shows that people are genetically predisposed to associate certain facial expressions with certain basic emotions.\nPremise1: If there is a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures, then there is probably a genetic predisposition to that behavior.\nPremise2: The people whose faces were depicted in the photographs were not all from the same culture.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Psychologists recently conducted a study in which people from widely disparate cultures were asked to examine five photographs. Statement2: Each photograph depicted the face of a person expressing one of five basic human emotions -- fear, happiness, disgust, anger, and sadness. The people in the study were asked to identify the emotion being expressed in each photograph. Statement4: For each photograph, not everyone identified the same emotion. Statement5: This shows that people are less able to relate basic emotions to the facial expressions of people from different cultures.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2597",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The people whose faces were depicted in the photographs were not all from the same culture.",
            "O": "Premise1: If there is a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures, then there is probably a genetic predisposition to that behavior.",
            "P": "Statement1: Psychologists recently conducted a study in which people from widely disparate cultures were asked to examine five photographs. Statement2: Each photograph depicted the face of a person expressing one of five basic human emotions -- fear, happiness, disgust, anger, and sadness. The people in the study were asked to identify the emotion being expressed in each photograph. Statement3: For each photograph, everyone identified the same emotion. Statement4: This shows that people are genetically predisposed to associate certain facial expressions with certain basic emotions."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Critic : it has been argued that the real value of a product is not equal to the price people are willing to pay for it, on the grounds that this price often exceeds the cost of the labor required to create it, and the excess goes to the investor as an unjustifiably acquired profit. Statement2: But since the existence of the product is as dependent on the investor's initial capital outlay as on the laborer's toil, this argument is fallacious.\nPremise1: The real value of a product is not completely determined by the cost of the labor needed to bring the product into existence.\nPremise2: People who make the initial investment required to create a product have a right to a greater percentage of the receipts from its sale than do those whose contributions occur later.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Critic : it has been argued that the real value of a product is not equal to the price people are willing to pay for it, on the grounds that this price often exceeds the cost of the labor required to create it, and the excess big part goes to the investor as an unjustifiably acquired profit. Statement2: But since the investor's initial capital outlay is far more important than laborer's toil, this argument is fallacious.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_373",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The critic's argument requires assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People who make the initial investment required to create a product have a right to a greater percentage of the receipts from its sale than do those whose contributions occur later.",
            "O": "Premise1: The real value of a product is not completely determined by the cost of the labor needed to bring the product into existence.",
            "P": "Statement1: Critic : it has been argued that the real value of a product is not equal to the price people are willing to pay for it, on the grounds that this price often exceeds the cost of the labor required to create it, and the excess goes to the investor as an unjustifiably acquired profit. Statement2: But since the existence of the product is as dependent on the investor's initial capital outlay as on the laborer's toil, this argument is fallacious."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Statement2: Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.\nPremise1: The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism.\nPremise2: Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Statement3: So there is less need for police patrols at night police can deal with most crimes more promptly committed by local teenagers take place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1743",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Any decrease in the need for police patrols in the late evening would not mean that there could be more intensive patrolling in the afternoon.",
            "O": "Premise1: The crimes committed by teenagers in the afternoon are mostly small thefts and inconsequential vandalism.",
            "P": "Statement1: Citizens of parktown are worried by the increased frequency of serious crimes committed by local teenagers. In response, the city government has instituted a series of measures designed to keep teenagers at home in the late evening. Statement2: Even if the measures succeed in keeping teenagers at home, however, they are unlikely to affect the problem that concerns citizens, since most crimes committed by local teenagers take place between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Legislator : we should not waste any more of the taxpayers'money on the government's job-creation program. Statement2: The unemployment rate in this country has actually risen since the program was begun, so the program has clearly been a failure.\nPremise1: The unemployment rate would not have risen even more than it has if the job- creation program had not been in existence.\nPremise2: If the job-creation program had been run more efficiently, it could have better served its purpose.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Legislator : we should put more of the taxpayers'money on the government's job-creation program. Statement2: The unemployment rate in this country has actually falling since the program was begun, so we need to run the program more efficiently.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_567",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following is an assumption on which the legislator's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If the job-creation program had been run more efficiently, it could have better served its purpose.",
            "O": "Premise1: The unemployment rate would not have risen even more than it has if the job- creation program had not been in existence.",
            "P": "Statement1: Legislator : we should not waste any more of the taxpayers'money on the government's job-creation program. Statement2: The unemployment rate in this country has actually risen since the program was begun, so the program has clearly been a failure."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Company president : most of our best sales representatives came to the job with a degree in engineering but little or no sales experience. Statement2: Thus, when we hire sales representatives, we should favor applicants who have engineering degrees but little or no sales experience over applicants with extensive sales experience but no engineering degrees.\nPremise1: Most of the people hired by the company as sales representatives have had a degree in engineering but no sales experience.\nPremise2: Most of the people who apply for a sales representative position with the company do not have a degree in engineering.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Company president : most of our best sales representatives came to the job without a degree in engineering but much sales experience. Statement2: Thus, when we hire sales representatives, we should favor applicants who doesn't have engineering degrees but much sales experience over applicants have a engineering degree but with little or no sales experience.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2521",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the company president's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Most of the people who apply for a sales representative position with the company do not have a degree in engineering.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most of the people hired by the company as sales representatives have had a degree in engineering but no sales experience.",
            "P": "Statement1: Company president : most of our best sales representatives came to the job with a degree in engineering but little or no sales experience. Statement2: Thus, when we hire sales representatives, we should favor applicants who have engineering degrees but little or no sales experience over applicants with extensive sales experience but no engineering degrees."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 western economies, more energy is used to operate buildings than to operate transportation. Much of the decline in energy consumption since the oil crisis of 1973 is due to more efficient use of energy in homes and offices. Statement2: New building technologies, which make lighting, heating, and ventilation systems more efficient, have cut billions of dollars from energy bills in the west. Statement3: Since energy savings from these efficiencies save several billion dollars per year today, we can conclude that 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $ 200 billion per year ( calculated in current dollars ).\nPremise1: Technology used to make buildings energy efficient will not become prohibitively expensive over the next century.\nPremise2: Another oil crisis will occur in the next 50 to 100 years.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In western economies, more energy is used to operate buildings than to operate transportation. Much of the decline in energy consumption since the oil crisis of 1973 is due to more efficient use of energy in homes and offices. Statement3: New building technologies, which make lighting, heating, and ventilation systems more efficient, have cut billions of dollars from energy bills in the west. Statement4: Despite that energy savings from these efficiencies save several billion dollars per year today, we cannot conclude that 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $ 200 billion per year ( calculated in current dollars ) due to oil crisis.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2133",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "On which one of the following assumptions does the argument rely?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Another oil crisis will occur in the next 50 to 100 years.",
            "O": "Premise1: Technology used to make buildings energy efficient will not become prohibitively expensive over the next century.",
            "P": "Statement1: In western economies, more energy is used to operate buildings than to operate transportation. Much of the decline in energy consumption since the oil crisis of 1973 is due to more efficient use of energy in homes and offices. Statement2: New building technologies, which make lighting, heating, and ventilation systems more efficient, have cut billions of dollars from energy bills in the west. Statement3: Since energy savings from these efficiencies save several billion dollars per year today, we can conclude that 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $ 200 billion per year ( calculated in current dollars )."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Logging industry official : harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since when large old trees die in the forest they decompose, releasing their stored carbon dioxide. Statement2: Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests.\nPremise1: Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly.\nPremise2: A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Logging industry official : replace old trees with young ones can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since younger trees can absorb carbon dioxide more efficently Statement2: Moreover, the young tree grows so fast that it soon begins to absorb carbon dioxide",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3449",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the official's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species.",
            "O": "Premise1: Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly.",
            "P": "Statement1: Logging industry official : harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since when large old trees die in the forest they decompose, releasing their stored carbon dioxide. Statement2: Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Ancient humans in eastern north america hunted mammoths until the mammoth disappeared from the area around 13,000 years ago. Statement2: Recently, a fossil bone with an engraving that depicts a mammoth was found in an ancient settlement in eastern north america. Statement3: This shows that the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in this area.\nPremise1: The engraving was made during the time when the settlement was occupied\nPremise2: The fossil on which the engraving was made was not a mammoth bone\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Ancient humans in eastern north america hunted mammoths until the mammoth disappeared from the area around 13,000 years ago. Statement2: Recently, a fossil bone with an engraving that depicts an animal was found in an ancient settlement in eastern north america 13,000 years ago Statement3: This shows thatthere wereother animals living when mammoths lived in this area.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_181",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument requires the assumption that",
            "Om": "Premise2: The fossil on which the engraving was made was not a mammoth bone",
            "O": "Premise1: The engraving was made during the time when the settlement was occupied",
            "P": "Statement1: Ancient humans in eastern north america hunted mammoths until the mammoth disappeared from the area around 13,000 years ago. Statement2: Recently, a fossil bone with an engraving that depicts a mammoth was found in an ancient settlement in eastern north america. Statement3: This shows that the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in this area."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 members have criticized the club's president for inviting dr. hines to speak at the annual awards banquet without consulting other club members beforehand. So the current president acted appropriately in the way in which she invited dr. hines. Statement2: But a few years ago the previous club president hired a tax accountant even though he had not discussed it with club members beforehand.\nPremise1: The club's previous president acted appropriately in hiring the tax accountant without first consulting other club members.\nPremise2: At the time the previous club president hired the tax accountant, most club members did not expect to be consulted about such matters.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Some members have criticized the club's president for inviting dr. hines to speak at the annual awards banquet without consulting other club members beforehand. So the current president acted appropriately in the way in which she invited dr. hines. Statement2: Because a few years ago the previous club president hired a tax accountant after he consulted club members, but no one gave him an opinion.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3833",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: At the time the previous club president hired the tax accountant, most club members did not expect to be consulted about such matters.",
            "O": "Premise1: The club's previous president acted appropriately in hiring the tax accountant without first consulting other club members.",
            "P": "Statement1: Some members have criticized the club's president for inviting dr. hines to speak at the annual awards banquet without consulting other club members beforehand. So the current president acted appropriately in the way in which she invited dr. hines. Statement2: But a few years ago the previous club president hired a tax accountant even though he had not discussed it with club members beforehand."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Since empathy is essential for people to be willing to follow moral codes that sometimes require them to ignore their own welfare to help others, civilized society could not exist without empathy.\nPremise1: Civilized society can exist only if there are people who are willing to at least sometimes ignore their own welfare to help others.\nPremise2: People who feel empathy tend to ignore their own welfare for the sake of others.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Since empathy is essential for people to be willing to follow moral codes that always require them to ignore their own welfare to help others, civilized society could not exist without empathy.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1260",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: People who feel empathy tend to ignore their own welfare for the sake of others.",
            "O": "Premise1: Civilized society can exist only if there are people who are willing to at least sometimes ignore their own welfare to help others.",
            "P": "Statement1: Since empathy is essential for people to be willing to follow moral codes that sometimes require them to ignore their own welfare to help others, civilized society could not exist without empathy."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 an experiment, some volunteers were assigned to take aerobics classes and others to take weight-training classes. Statement2: After three months, each performed an arduous mathematical calculation. Just after that challenge, the measurable stress symptoms of the volunteers in the aerobics classes were less than those of the volunteers in the weight-training classes. Statement3: This provides good evidence that aerobic exercise helps the body handle psychological stress.\nPremise1: On average, the volunteers assigned to the aerobics classes got a greater amount of aerobic exercise overall during the experiment, including any exercise outside the classes, than did the volunteers assigned to the weight-training classes.\nPremise2: On average, the volunteers who were assigned to the aerobics classes got more exercise in the months in which they took those classes than they had been getting before beginning the experiment.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In an experiment, some volunteers were assigned to take aerobics classes and others to take weight-training classes. Statement2: After three months, each performed an arduous mathematical calculation. Just after that challenge, the measurable stress symptoms of the volunteers in the aerobics classes were less than three months ago. Statement4: This provides good evidence that aerobic exercise helps the body handle psychological stress.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2861",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption the argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: On average, the volunteers who were assigned to the aerobics classes got more exercise in the months in which they took those classes than they had been getting before beginning the experiment.",
            "O": "Premise1: On average, the volunteers assigned to the aerobics classes got a greater amount of aerobic exercise overall during the experiment, including any exercise outside the classes, than did the volunteers assigned to the weight-training classes.",
            "P": "Statement1: In an experiment, some volunteers were assigned to take aerobics classes and others to take weight-training classes. Statement2: After three months, each performed an arduous mathematical calculation. Just after that challenge, the measurable stress symptoms of the volunteers in the aerobics classes were less than those of the volunteers in the weight-training classes. Statement3: This provides good evidence that aerobic exercise helps the body handle psychological stress."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 mathematical theorem proved by one mathematician should not be accepted until each step in its proof has been independently verified. Statement2: Computer-assisted proofs generally proceed by conducting a vast number of calculations -- surveying all the possible types of instances in which the theorem could apply and proving that the theorem holds for each type. Statement3: In most computer-assisted proofs there are astronomically many types of instances to survey, and no human being could review every step in the proof. Statement4: Hence, computer-assisted proofs involving astronomically many types of instances should not be accepted.\nPremise1: The use of an independent computer program does not satisfy the requirement for independent verification of each step in a proof that is extended enough to be otherwise unverifiable.\nPremise2: Computers cannot be used to assist in generating proofs of mathematical theorems that involve only a very limited number of steps.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A mathematical theorem proved by one mathematician should not be accepted until each step in its proof has been independently verified. Statement2: Computer-assisted proofs generally proceed by conducting a vast number of calculations -- surveying all the possible types of instances in which the theorem could apply and proving that the theorem holds for each type. Statement3: In every computer-assisted proofs which involve almost infinite number of steps are astronomically many types of instances to survey, and no human being could review every step in the proof. Statement4: Hence, computer-assisted proofs should not be accepted.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1584",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Computers cannot be used to assist in generating proofs of mathematical theorems that involve only a very limited number of steps.",
            "O": "Premise1: The use of an independent computer program does not satisfy the requirement for independent verification of each step in a proof that is extended enough to be otherwise unverifiable.",
            "P": "Statement1: A mathematical theorem proved by one mathematician should not be accepted until each step in its proof has been independently verified. Statement2: Computer-assisted proofs generally proceed by conducting a vast number of calculations -- surveying all the possible types of instances in which the theorem could apply and proving that the theorem holds for each type. Statement3: In most computer-assisted proofs there are astronomically many types of instances to survey, and no human being could review every step in the proof. Statement4: Hence, computer-assisted proofs involving astronomically many types of instances should not be accepted."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 master plan for the new park calls for the planting of trees of any species native to this area, except for those native trees that grow to be very large, such as the cottonwood. Statement2: The trees that the community group donated were purchased at three rivers nursery, which sells mostly native trees and shrubs. Statement3: Thus, the donated trees are probably consistent with the master plan.\nPremise1: Three rivers nursery does not sell any tree species that grow to be very large.\nPremise2: Three rivers nursery sells cottonwood trees.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The master plan for the new park calls for the planting of trees of any species native to this area, except for those native trees that grow to be very large, such as the cottonwood. Statement2: The trees that the community group donated were purchased at three rivers nursery Statement3: Thus, the donated trees are not consistent with the master plan.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4009",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Three rivers nursery sells cottonwood trees.",
            "O": "Premise1: Three rivers nursery does not sell any tree species that grow to be very large.",
            "P": "Statement1: The master plan for the new park calls for the planting of trees of any species native to this area, except for those native trees that grow to be very large, such as the cottonwood. Statement2: The trees that the community group donated were purchased at three rivers nursery, which sells mostly native trees and shrubs. Statement3: Thus, the donated trees are probably consistent with the master plan."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 patients who enrolled at a sleep clinic because of insomnia, those who inhaled the scent of peppermint before going to bed were more likely to have difficulty falling asleep than were patients who inhaled the scent of bitter orange. Statement2: Since it is known that inhaling bitter orange does not help people fall asleep more easily, this study shows that inhaling the scent of peppermint makes insomnia worse.\nPremise1: The patients who inhaled the scent of bitter orange were, on average, suffering from milder cases of insomnia than were the patients who inhaled the scent of peppermint.\nPremise2: Some of the patients who enrolled in the sleep clinic also had difficulty staying asleep once they fell asleep.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In a study of patients who enrolled at a sleep clinic because of insomnia, those who inhaled the scent of peppermint before going to bed were more likely to help people keep asleep than were patients who inhaled the scent of bitter orange. Statement2: Since it is known that inhaling bitter orange does help people keep asleep more easily, this study shows that inhaling the scent of peppermint helps people keep asleep better.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1671",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some of the patients who enrolled in the sleep clinic also had difficulty staying asleep once they fell asleep.",
            "O": "Premise1: The patients who inhaled the scent of bitter orange were, on average, suffering from milder cases of insomnia than were the patients who inhaled the scent of peppermint.",
            "P": "Statement1: In a study of patients who enrolled at a sleep clinic because of insomnia, those who inhaled the scent of peppermint before going to bed were more likely to have difficulty falling asleep than were patients who inhaled the scent of bitter orange. Statement2: Since it is known that inhaling bitter orange does not help people fall asleep more easily, this study shows that inhaling the scent of peppermint makes insomnia worse."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Sociologist : many rural residents claim to only approve of modest lifestyles ; yet, many of these same rural residents often buy magazines focused on the lives of celebrities. Statement2: However, it is proven that humans are often fascinated by the very things they condemn. Statement3: Therefore, it is predictable that these celebrity magazines would be popular with these rural residents.\nPremise1: Most rural residents who buy the magazines focused on celebrities do not regard the celebrity lifestyles as modest.\nPremise2: All people who buy magazines focused on the lives of celebrities condemn such lifestyles.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Sociologist : many people claim to only approve of modest lifestyles ; yet, many of these same people often buy magazines focused on the lives of celebrities. Statement2: However, it is proven that humans are often fascinated by the very things they condemn. Statement3: Therefore, it is predictable that these celebrity magazines would be popular with these people.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_457",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The sociologist's argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: All people who buy magazines focused on the lives of celebrities condemn such lifestyles.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most rural residents who buy the magazines focused on celebrities do not regard the celebrity lifestyles as modest.",
            "P": "Statement1: Sociologist : many rural residents claim to only approve of modest lifestyles ; yet, many of these same rural residents often buy magazines focused on the lives of celebrities. Statement2: However, it is proven that humans are often fascinated by the very things they condemn. Statement3: Therefore, it is predictable that these celebrity magazines would be popular with these rural residents."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Last year, pharmaceutical manufacturers significantly increased the amount of money they spent promoting new drugs, which they do mainly by sending sales representatives to visit physicians in their offices. Statement2: However, two years ago there was an average of 640 such visits per representative, whereas last year that figure fell to 501. sent3: so the additional promotion must have been counterproductive, making physicians less willing to receive visits by pharmaceutical sales representatives.\nPremise1: Most pharmaceutical manufacturers increased the size of their sales forces so that their sales representatives could devote more time to each physician.\nPremise2: The more visits a physician receives from a pharmaceutical sales representative, the more likely he or she is to prescribe drugs made by that representative's company.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Last year, pharmaceutical manufacturers significantly increased the amount of money they spent promoting new drugs, which they do mainly by sending sales representatives to visit physicians in their offices. Statement2: However, two years ago there was an average of 640 such visits per representative, whereas last year that figure fell to 501. Statement3: The additional promotion must have been counterproductive, because compared with the decline in visits the success rate of promoting new drugs has increased.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1750",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The more visits a physician receives from a pharmaceutical sales representative, the more likely he or she is to prescribe drugs made by that representative's company.",
            "O": "Premise1: Most pharmaceutical manufacturers increased the size of their sales forces so that their sales representatives could devote more time to each physician.",
            "P": "Statement1: Last year, pharmaceutical manufacturers significantly increased the amount of money they spent promoting new drugs, which they do mainly by sending sales representatives to visit physicians in their offices. Statement2: However, two years ago there was an average of 640 such visits per representative, whereas last year that figure fell to 501. sent3: so the additional promotion must have been counterproductive, making physicians less willing to receive visits by pharmaceutical sales representatives."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: To decrease the number of crimes in city y, the city's police commissioner proposed taking some police officers from low-crime districts of the city and moving them to high-crime districts of the city. Statement2: His proposal is based on city y crime data that show that the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district.\nPremise1: Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do not experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.\nPremise2: City x experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the police commissioner of city y.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: To decrease the number of crimes in city y, the city's police commissioner proposed taking some police officers from low-crime districts of the city and moving them to high-crime districts of the city. Statement2: His proposal is based on city y crime data that show that the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district, and there is no increase in crime in the areas that police have been taken away.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_429",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The police commissioner's proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: City x experienced a drastic reduction in crime after implementing a proposal similar to that proposed by the police commissioner of city y.",
            "O": "Premise1: Districts of the city from which police officers are removed do not experience significant crime increases shortly after the removal of those officers.",
            "P": "Statement1: To decrease the number of crimes in city y, the city's police commissioner proposed taking some police officers from low-crime districts of the city and moving them to high-crime districts of the city. Statement2: His proposal is based on city y crime data that show that the number of crimes in any district of the city decreases when additional police officers are moved into that district."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Historian : fifteenth-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states. Statement2: In medieval europe ( from the fifth to the fifteenth century ), sovereignty centered in cities and towns and radiated outward, with boundaries often ambiguously defined. Statement3: The conceptual shift toward the modern state began in the late fifteenth century, when mapmakers learned to reflect geography accurately by basing maps on latitude-longitude grids. Statement4: By the midseventeenth century, nearly all maps showed boundary lines.\nPremise1: During the fifteenth century in europe, mapmakers simplified the borders of sovereignty by drawing clear lines of demarcation between political powers.\nPremise2: Borders did not become codified in europe until certain treaties were signed in the early nineteenth century.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Historian : fifteenth-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states. Statement2: In medieval europe ( from the fifth to the fifteenth century ), sovereignty centered in cities and towns and radiated outward, with boundaries often ambiguously defined. Statement3: The conceptual shift toward the clear national border began in the late nineteenth century, when mapmakers learned to carve out detailed boundaries Statement4: By the twenty-first century, nearly all the bountries of the maps have been stabilized.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4560",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following would, if true, most strengthen the historian's reasoning?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Borders did not become codified in europe until certain treaties were signed in the early nineteenth century.",
            "O": "Premise1: During the fifteenth century in europe, mapmakers simplified the borders of sovereignty by drawing clear lines of demarcation between political powers.",
            "P": "Statement1: Historian : fifteenth-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states. Statement2: In medieval europe ( from the fifth to the fifteenth century ), sovereignty centered in cities and towns and radiated outward, with boundaries often ambiguously defined. Statement3: The conceptual shift toward the modern state began in the late fifteenth century, when mapmakers learned to reflect geography accurately by basing maps on latitude-longitude grids. Statement4: By the midseventeenth century, nearly all maps showed boundary lines."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 person reading a new book for pleasure is like a tourist traveling to a new place. Statement2: The reader reads, just as the tourist travels, to enlarge understanding rather than simply to acquire information. Statement3: Thus, it is better to read fewer books and spend more time on each rather than to quickly read as many as one can, just as it is better to travel to fewer places and spend more time in each rather than to spend a small amount of time in many different places.\nPremise1: Tourists gain much more understanding of a place once they have spent several days at that place than they do in their first few days there.\nPremise2: Tourists typically learn something about the places they visit even when they are there only to relax.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A person reading a new book for pleasure is like a tourist traveling to a new place. Statement2: The reader reads, just as the tourist travels, to relax themselves rather than simply to acquire information. Statement3: Thus, it is better to read aimlessly and spend more time on each rather than to effortly read as many as one can, just as it is better to travel at ease and naturally encounter scenery rather than to spend a amount of time deliberately seek out scenery.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_1554",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Tourists typically learn something about the places they visit even when they are there only to relax.",
            "O": "Premise1: Tourists gain much more understanding of a place once they have spent several days at that place than they do in their first few days there.",
            "P": "Statement1: A person reading a new book for pleasure is like a tourist traveling to a new place. Statement2: The reader reads, just as the tourist travels, to enlarge understanding rather than simply to acquire information. Statement3: Thus, it is better to read fewer books and spend more time on each rather than to quickly read as many as one can, just as it is better to travel to fewer places and spend more time in each rather than to spend a small amount of time in many different places."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 the united states, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Statement2: Since many local businesses in florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.\nPremise1: The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.\nPremise2: The number of people who move out of florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In the united states, of the people who moved from one state to another when they need to change work, the percentage who changed work from florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Statement2: Since many local businesses in florida cater to people changing work, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3639",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The number of people who move out of florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.",
            "O": "Premise1: The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.",
            "P": "Statement1: In the united states, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Statement2: Since many local businesses in florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 scientist : using the pioneering work of comparative psychologist gordon gallup as a model, several studies have investigated animals'capacity for mirror self-recognition ( msr ). Statement2: Most animals exposed to a mirror respond only with social behavior, such as aggression. However, in the case of the great apes, repeated exposure to mirrors leads to self-directed behaviors, such as exploring the inside of the mouth, suggesting that these animals recognize the reflection as an image of self. Statement3: The implication of these studies is that the great apes have a capacity for self-awareness unique among nonhuman species.\nPremise1: If an animal does not have the capacity for msr, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness.\nPremise2: Animals that do not exhibit msr may demonstrate a capacity for self-awareness in other ways.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Cognitive scientist : using the pioneering work of comparative psychologist gordon gallup as a model, several studies have investigated animals'capacity for mirror self-recognition ( msr ). Statement2: Most animals exposed to a mirror respond only with social behavior, such as aggression. However, in the case of the great apes, repeated exposure to mirrors leads to self-directed behaviors, such as exploring the inside of the mouth, suggesting that these animals recognize the reflection as an image of self. Statement4: These studies are not enough to prove that the great apes are the only species who have a capacity for self-awareness among nonhuman species.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1008",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The cognitive scientist makes which of the following assumptions in the argument above?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Animals that do not exhibit msr may demonstrate a capacity for self-awareness in other ways.",
            "O": "Premise1: If an animal does not have the capacity for msr, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness.",
            "P": "Statement1: Cognitive scientist : using the pioneering work of comparative psychologist gordon gallup as a model, several studies have investigated animals'capacity for mirror self-recognition ( msr ). Statement2: Most animals exposed to a mirror respond only with social behavior, such as aggression. However, in the case of the great apes, repeated exposure to mirrors leads to self-directed behaviors, such as exploring the inside of the mouth, suggesting that these animals recognize the reflection as an image of self. Statement3: The implication of these studies is that the great apes have a capacity for self-awareness unique among nonhuman species."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise. Statement2: It is clear that these efforts are wasted.\nPremise1: Species that would have become extinct have been saved due to the establishment of animal refuges.\nPremise2: Scientists estimate that at least 2000 species become extinct every year.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to fall. Statement2: It is clear that these efforts are effective.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_721",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Scientists estimate that at least 2000 species become extinct every year.",
            "O": "Premise1: Species that would have become extinct have been saved due to the establishment of animal refuges.",
            "P": "Statement1: Despite increasing international efforts to protect the natural habitats of endangered species of animals, the rate at which these species are becoming extinct continues to rise. Statement2: It is clear that these efforts are wasted."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Genuine happiness consists not in pleasurable feelings but instead in one's sense of approval of one's character and projects. Statement2: Thus the happy life, in fact, tends to be the good life, where the good life is understood not -- as it usually is these days -- as a life of material well-being but rather as a morally virtuous life.\nPremise1: People who approve of their own character and projects tend to lead morally virtuous lives.\nPremise2: Attaining happiness is the real goal of people who strive for material well-being.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Genuine happiness consists not in pleasurable feelings but instead in one's sense of approval of one's character and projects. Statement2: Thus the happy life, in fact, tends to be the good life, where the good life is understood not -- as it usually is these days -- as a life of material well-being but actually to reach the real goal of people who strive for material well-being.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4447",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Attaining happiness is the real goal of people who strive for material well-being.",
            "O": "Premise1: People who approve of their own character and projects tend to lead morally virtuous lives.",
            "P": "Statement1: Genuine happiness consists not in pleasurable feelings but instead in one's sense of approval of one's character and projects. Statement2: Thus the happy life, in fact, tends to be the good life, where the good life is understood not -- as it usually is these days -- as a life of material well-being but rather as a morally virtuous life."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Safety consultant : judged by the number of injuries per licensed vehicle, minivans are the safest vehicles on the road. Statement2: However, in carefully designed crash tests, minivans show no greater ability to protect their occupants than other vehicles of similar size do. Statement3: Thus, the reason minivans have such a good safety record is probably not that they are inherently safer than other vehicles, but rather that they are driven primarily by low-risk drivers.\nPremise1: Minivans generally have worse braking and emergency handling capabilities than other vehicles of similar size.\nPremise2: Minivans tend to carry more passengers at any given time than do most other vehicles.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Safety consultant : judged by the number of injuries per licensed vehicle, minivans are the most dangerous vehicles on the road. Statement2: However, in carefully designed crash tests, minivans show no worse ability to protect their occupants than other vehicles of similar size do. Statement3: Thus, the reason minivans have such a bad safety record is probably not that they are inherently more dangerous than other vehicles, but it's related to the amount of passengers minivans carry.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_1567",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the safety consultant's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Minivans tend to carry more passengers at any given time than do most other vehicles.",
            "O": "Premise1: Minivans generally have worse braking and emergency handling capabilities than other vehicles of similar size.",
            "P": "Statement1: Safety consultant : judged by the number of injuries per licensed vehicle, minivans are the safest vehicles on the road. Statement2: However, in carefully designed crash tests, minivans show no greater ability to protect their occupants than other vehicles of similar size do. Statement3: Thus, the reason minivans have such a good safety record is probably not that they are inherently safer than other vehicles, but rather that they are driven primarily by low-risk drivers."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Essayist : when the first prehistoric migrations of humans from asia to north america took place, the small bands of new arrivals encountered many species of animals that would be extinct only 2,000 years later. Statement2: Since it is implausible that hunting by these small bands of humans could have had such an effect, and since disease-causing microorganisms not native to north america were undoubtedly borne by the new arrivals as well as by the animals that followed them, these microorganisms were probably the crucial factor that accounts for the extinctions.\nPremise1: Very few species of north american animals not hunted by the new arrivals from asia were extinct 2, 000 years after the first migrations.\nPremise2: Individual humans and animals can carry a disease-causing microorganism without themselves suffering from the disease.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Essayist : when the first prehistoric migrations of humans from asia to north america took place, the large bands of new arrivals encountered many species of animals that would be extinct only 2,000 years later. Statement2: Since it is implausible that a disease-causing microorganism which individual humans and animals carried could have had such an effect, for that there was no mass death of people or animals from asia, hunting by these large bands of humans were probably the crucial factor that accounts for the extinctions.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_4540",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the essayist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Individual humans and animals can carry a disease-causing microorganism without themselves suffering from the disease.",
            "O": "Premise1: Very few species of north american animals not hunted by the new arrivals from asia were extinct 2, 000 years after the first migrations.",
            "P": "Statement1: Essayist : when the first prehistoric migrations of humans from asia to north america took place, the small bands of new arrivals encountered many species of animals that would be extinct only 2,000 years later. Statement2: Since it is implausible that hunting by these small bands of humans could have had such an effect, and since disease-causing microorganisms not native to north america were undoubtedly borne by the new arrivals as well as by the animals that followed them, these microorganisms were probably the crucial factor that accounts for the extinctions."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: One test to determine whether a person has been infected with tuberculosis consists of injecting the person with proteins extracted from the tuberculosis bacterium. Statement2: Once a person has been infected by a bacterium, the person's immune system subsequently recognizes certain proteins present in that bacterium and attacks the bacterium. This recognition also takes place in the test and results in a skin irritation at the injection site. Statement3: Hence the physicians who designed the test reasoned that anyone who reacts in this manner to an injection with the tuberculosis proteins has been infected with tuberculosis.\nPremise1: The ability of the proteins present in the tuberculosis bacterium to trigger the skin irritation is exclusive to that bacterium.\nPremise2: All of the proteins present in disease-causing bacteria can be recognized by the body's immune system.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: One test to determine whether a person has been infected with tuberculosis consists of injecting the person with any protein extracted from the tuberculosis bacterium. Statement2: Once a person has been infected by a bacterium, the person's immune system subsequently recognizes any proteins present in that bacterium and attacks the bacterium. This recognition also takes place in the test and results in a skin irritation at the injection site which is only a symptom of tuberculosis. Statement4: Hence the physicians who designed the test reasoned that it's the best way to determine whether a person has been infected with tuberculosis.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3298",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the physicians' reasoning depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: All of the proteins present in disease-causing bacteria can be recognized by the body's immune system.",
            "O": "Premise1: The ability of the proteins present in the tuberculosis bacterium to trigger the skin irritation is exclusive to that bacterium.",
            "P": "Statement1: One test to determine whether a person has been infected with tuberculosis consists of injecting the person with proteins extracted from the tuberculosis bacterium. Statement2: Once a person has been infected by a bacterium, the person's immune system subsequently recognizes certain proteins present in that bacterium and attacks the bacterium. This recognition also takes place in the test and results in a skin irritation at the injection site. Statement3: Hence the physicians who designed the test reasoned that anyone who reacts in this manner to an injection with the tuberculosis proteins has been infected with tuberculosis."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 makers of activite, a natural dietary supplement, claim that it promotes energy and mental alertness. Statement2: To back up their claim, they offer a month's supply of activite free to new customers. Statement3: Clearly, activite must be effective, since otherwise it would not be in the company's interest to make such an offer.\nPremise1: The makers of activite charge a handling fee that is considerably more than what it costs them to pack and ship their product.\nPremise2: There are less expensive dietary supplements on the market that are just as effective as activite.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The makers of activite, a natural dietary supplement, claim that only it can promote energy and mental alertness. Statement2: To back up their claim, they take a test and do prove that activite can promote energy and mental alertness. Statement3: Clearly, what the makers of activite claim is true.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_734",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There are less expensive dietary supplements on the market that are just as effective as activite.",
            "O": "Premise1: The makers of activite charge a handling fee that is considerably more than what it costs them to pack and ship their product.",
            "P": "Statement1: The makers of activite, a natural dietary supplement, claim that it promotes energy and mental alertness. Statement2: To back up their claim, they offer a month's supply of activite free to new customers. Statement3: Clearly, activite must be effective, since otherwise it would not be in the company's interest to make such an offer."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: To cut costs, a high school modified its airconditioning system to increase its efficiency. The modified system, however, caused the humidity in the school air to decrease by 18 percent. Statement2: Twenty-four hours after the decrease in air humidity, a 25 percent increase in the number of visits to the school nurse was reported. Statement3: This shows that a decrease in humidity can make people ill.\nPremise1: At least some of the visits to the school nurse after the system was modified were due to illness.\nPremise2: It takes 24 hours after a person is infected with a virus for that person to exhibit symptoms.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: To cut costs, a high school modified its airconditioning system to increase its efficiency. The modified system, however, caused the humidity in the school air to decrease by 18 percent and elevated levels of the virus in the air. Statement3: Four hours after the decrease in air humidity, a 25 percent increase in the number of visits to the school nurse was reported. Statement4: But this has nothing to do with the decrease in humidity, which is unlikely to causes the virus to act so quickly.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_3832",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: It takes 24 hours after a person is infected with a virus for that person to exhibit symptoms.",
            "O": "Premise1: At least some of the visits to the school nurse after the system was modified were due to illness.",
            "P": "Statement1: To cut costs, a high school modified its airconditioning system to increase its efficiency. The modified system, however, caused the humidity in the school air to decrease by 18 percent. Statement2: Twenty-four hours after the decrease in air humidity, a 25 percent increase in the number of visits to the school nurse was reported. Statement3: This shows that a decrease in humidity can make people ill."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Early in the twentieth century, lake konfa became very polluted. Statement2: Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake's waters have become cleaner. Statement3: Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake's bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. Statement4: However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Statement5: Therefore, provided this technology is effective, the fears are groundless.\nPremise1: The pipeline's construction will disturb sediments at the bottom of the lake, dispersing into the water toxic pollutants that have settled there.\nPremise2: The leak-preventing technology has been in use for several years without any pipeline in which it is installed developing serious leaks.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Early in the twentieth century, lake konfa became very polluted. Statement2: Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake's waters have become cleaner. Statement3: Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake's bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. Statement4: Though a technology for preventing leaks is being installed .but it is not proven safely enough Statement5: Therefore, while this technology is effective, the fears are well-founded.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3624",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The leak-preventing technology has been in use for several years without any pipeline in which it is installed developing serious leaks.",
            "O": "Premise1: The pipeline's construction will disturb sediments at the bottom of the lake, dispersing into the water toxic pollutants that have settled there.",
            "P": "Statement1: Early in the twentieth century, lake konfa became very polluted. Statement2: Recently fish populations have recovered as release of industrial pollutants has declined and the lake's waters have become cleaner. Statement3: Fears are now being voiced that the planned construction of an oil pipeline across the lake's bottom might revive pollution and cause the fish population to decline again. Statement4: However, a technology for preventing leaks is being installed. Statement5: Therefore, provided this technology is effective, the fears are groundless."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Certain groups of asian snails include both\" left-handed\" and\" right-handed\" species, with shells coiling to the left and right, respectively. Statement2: Some left-handed species have evolved from right-handed ones. Statement3: Also, researchers found that snaileating snakes in the same habitat have asymmetrical jaws, allowing them to grasp right-handed snail shells more easily. Statement4: If these snakes ate more right-handed snails over time, this would have given left-handed snails an evolutionary advantage over right-handed snails, with the left handed snails eventually becoming a new species. Statement5: Thus, the snakes'asymmetrical jaws probably helped drive the emergence of the left-handed snail species.\nPremise1: Experiments show that the snail-eating snakes in this habitat fail more often in trying to eat left-handed snails than in trying to eat right-handed snails.\nPremise2: Some right-handed snails in this habitat have shells with a very narrow opening that helps prevent snakes from extracting the snails from inside their shells.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Certain groups of asian snails include both\" left-handed\" and\" right-handed\" species, with shells coiling to the left and right, respectively. Statement2: Some left-handed species have evolved from right-handed ones. Statement3: Also, researchers found that snaileating snakes in the same habitat have asymmetrical jaws, allowing them to grasp left-handed snail shells more easily. Statement4: If these snakes ate more left-handed snails over time, this would promote left-handed snails to evolve more rapidly than right-handed snails which there is no threat stimulating, with the left handed snails eventually becoming a new species. Statement5: Thus, the snakes'asymmetrical jaws probably helped drive the emergence of the left-handed snail species.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_4124",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following would, if true, most strengthen the argument that asymmetrical snake jaws helped drive left-handed snail evolution?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Some right-handed snails in this habitat have shells with a very narrow opening that helps prevent snakes from extracting the snails from inside their shells.",
            "O": "Premise1: Experiments show that the snail-eating snakes in this habitat fail more often in trying to eat left-handed snails than in trying to eat right-handed snails.",
            "P": "Statement1: Certain groups of asian snails include both\" left-handed\" and\" right-handed\" species, with shells coiling to the left and right, respectively. Statement2: Some left-handed species have evolved from right-handed ones. Statement3: Also, researchers found that snaileating snakes in the same habitat have asymmetrical jaws, allowing them to grasp right-handed snail shells more easily. Statement4: If these snakes ate more right-handed snails over time, this would have given left-handed snails an evolutionary advantage over right-handed snails, with the left handed snails eventually becoming a new species. Statement5: Thus, the snakes'asymmetrical jaws probably helped drive the emergence of the left-handed snail species."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Economist : the wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in this country would be protected from cuts by enacting a maximum wage law that prohibits executives at any corporation from earning more than, say, 50 times what the corporation's lowest-paid employees in this country earn. A maximum wage law would remove this incentive for these executives to cut the wages of their lowest-paid employees. Statement2: Currently, some executives try to increase corporate profits -- and their own salaries -- by cutting the pay and benefits of their corporations'employees.\nPremise1: If such a maximum wage law were enacted in the economist's country, one or more corporate executives would not cut the pay and benefits of their corporations' lowest-paid employees in the economist's country.\nPremise2: No corporate executives in the economist's country would raise the wages of their corporations' lowest-paid employees in the economist's country unless such a maximum wage law linked executive wages to those of their corporations' lowest-paid employees in the economist's country.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Economist : the wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in this country would be protected from cuts by enacting a maximum wage law that prohibits executives at any corporation from earning more than, say, 50 times what the corporation's lowest-paid employees in this country earn. A maximum wage law would remove this incentive for these executives to cut the wages of their lowest-paid employees. Statement2: Currently, some executives try to decrease corporate profits -- and their own salaries -- by adding the pay and benefits of their corporations'employees.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_3836",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: No corporate executives in the economist's country would raise the wages of their corporations' lowest-paid employees in the economist's country unless such a maximum wage law linked executive wages to those of their corporations' lowest-paid employees in the economist's country.",
            "O": "Premise1: If such a maximum wage law were enacted in the economist's country, one or more corporate executives would not cut the pay and benefits of their corporations' lowest-paid employees in the economist's country.",
            "P": "Statement1: Economist : the wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in this country would be protected from cuts by enacting a maximum wage law that prohibits executives at any corporation from earning more than, say, 50 times what the corporation's lowest-paid employees in this country earn. A maximum wage law would remove this incentive for these executives to cut the wages of their lowest-paid employees. Statement2: Currently, some executives try to increase corporate profits -- and their own salaries -- by cutting the pay and benefits of their corporations'employees."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Readers give more credibility and respond more positively to negative restaurant reviews if the critics begin their reviews by discussing the things they enjoyed about the restaurant. Statement2: Studies show that readers enjoy hearing positive comments before being told unpleasant details. Statement3: Therefore, any restaurant critic should make sure to start every review by giving ample praise about the positive aspects of the restaurant before launching into any negative commentary.\nPremise1: Newspapers and magazines will often only publish the beginning of a restaurant review to save space.\nPremise2: Restaurant critics often receive bribes from restaurants to write positive reviews.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Readers give more credibility and respond more positively to negative restaurant reviews if the critics begin their reviews in the view of culinary or food industry about the restaurant. Statement2: Studies show that readers enjoy hearing professional comments before being told unpleasant details. Statement3: Therefore, all restaurant critic should make sure to start every review by giving professional opinion about the positive aspects of the restaurant before launching into any negative commentary.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1326",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously casts doubt on the wisdom of this recommendation?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Restaurant critics often receive bribes from restaurants to write positive reviews.",
            "O": "Premise1: Newspapers and magazines will often only publish the beginning of a restaurant review to save space.",
            "P": "Statement1: Readers give more credibility and respond more positively to negative restaurant reviews if the critics begin their reviews by discussing the things they enjoyed about the restaurant. Statement2: Studies show that readers enjoy hearing positive comments before being told unpleasant details. Statement3: Therefore, any restaurant critic should make sure to start every review by giving ample praise about the positive aspects of the restaurant before launching into any negative commentary."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 recent study showed that the immune system blood cells of the study's participants who drank tea but no coffee took half as long to respond to germs as did the blood cells of participants who drank coffee but no tea. Statement2: Thus, drinking tea boosted the participants'immune system defenses.\nPremise1: In the study, drinking coffee did not cause the blood cell response time to double.\nPremise2: Coffee and tea do not have in common any chemicals that fight disease in the human body.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A recent study showed that the immune system blood cells of the study's participants who drank tea but no coffee took half as long to recover from disease as did the blood cells of participants who drank coffee but no tea. Statement2: Thus, drinking tea boosted the participants'self-healing ability.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2783",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Coffee and tea do not have in common any chemicals that fight disease in the human body.",
            "O": "Premise1: In the study, drinking coffee did not cause the blood cell response time to double.",
            "P": "Statement1: A recent study showed that the immune system blood cells of the study's participants who drank tea but no coffee took half as long to respond to germs as did the blood cells of participants who drank coffee but no tea. Statement2: Thus, drinking tea boosted the participants'immune system defenses."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain forest in melonia show that last year the deforestation rate of this environmentally sensitive zone was significantly lower than in previous years. Statement2: The melonian government, which spent millions of dollars last year to enforce laws against burning and cutting of the forest, is claiming that the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts to halt the destruction are proving effective.\nPremise1: Rainfall during the usually dry 6-month annual burning season was abnormally heavy last year.\nPremise2: Landowner opposition to the government's antideforestation efforts grew more violent last year in response to the increased enforcement.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain forest in melonia show that last year the deforestation rate of this environmentally sensitive zone was significantly lower than in previous years. Statement2: The melonian government, which spent millions of dollars last year to enforce laws against burning, informing the consequence of destruction of rain forest and cutting of the forest, is claiming that the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts to make landowner protect the rain forest are proving effective.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2102",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the government's claim?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Landowner opposition to the government's antideforestation efforts grew more violent last year in response to the increased enforcement.",
            "O": "Premise1: Rainfall during the usually dry 6-month annual burning season was abnormally heavy last year.",
            "P": "Statement1: Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain forest in melonia show that last year the deforestation rate of this environmentally sensitive zone was significantly lower than in previous years. Statement2: The melonian government, which spent millions of dollars last year to enforce laws against burning and cutting of the forest, is claiming that the satellite data indicate that its increased efforts to halt the destruction are proving effective."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: During its caterpillar stage, the leopard magpie moth feeds on a plant called the natal grass cycad and by so doing laces its body with macrozamin, a toxin that makes the moth highly unpalatable to would-be predators. Statement2: Since the natal grass cycad is now endangered and facing extinction, the leopard magpie moth is also in danger of extinction.\nPremise1: Feeding on the natal grass cycad is the only means by which the leopard magpie moth can make itself highly unpalatable to predators.\nPremise2: None of the potential predators of the leopard magpie moth have developed a tolerance to macrozamin.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: During its caterpillar stage, the leopard magpie moth feeds on a plant called the natal grass cycad and by so doing laces its body with macrozamin, a toxin that makes the moth highly unpalatable to would-be predators. Statement2: Although the natal grass cycad flourish now, the leopard magpie moth is still in danger of extinction.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1065",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: None of the potential predators of the leopard magpie moth have developed a tolerance to macrozamin.",
            "O": "Premise1: Feeding on the natal grass cycad is the only means by which the leopard magpie moth can make itself highly unpalatable to predators.",
            "P": "Statement1: During its caterpillar stage, the leopard magpie moth feeds on a plant called the natal grass cycad and by so doing laces its body with macrozamin, a toxin that makes the moth highly unpalatable to would-be predators. Statement2: Since the natal grass cycad is now endangered and facing extinction, the leopard magpie moth is also in danger of extinction."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Animal feed should not include genetically modified plants. Statement2: A study found that laboratory rats fed genetically modified potatoes for 30 days tended to develop intestinal deformities and a weakened immune system, whereas rats fed a normal diet of foods that were not genetically modified did not develop these problems.\nPremise1: Potatoes are not normally a part of the diet of laboratory rats.\nPremise2: Intestinal deformities at birth are not uncommon among rats bred in laboratory conditions.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Animal feed should not include genetically modified plants. Statement2: A study found that laboratory rats fed genetically modified plants for 30 days tended to develop intestinal deformities",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1960",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Intestinal deformities at birth are not uncommon among rats bred in laboratory conditions.",
            "O": "Premise1: Potatoes are not normally a part of the diet of laboratory rats.",
            "P": "Statement1: Animal feed should not include genetically modified plants. Statement2: A study found that laboratory rats fed genetically modified potatoes for 30 days tended to develop intestinal deformities and a weakened immune system, whereas rats fed a normal diet of foods that were not genetically modified did not develop these problems."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 setting environmental standards for industry and others to meet, it is inadvisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve. Statement2: Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. Statement3: So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved.\nPremise1: There are effective ways to take into account all of the relevant risks posed by allowing different levels of contaminants\nPremise2: The only contaminants worth measuring are generated by industry\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: In setting environmental standards, it is advisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve. Statement2: Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, and at a cost that is not exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. Statement3: So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks of industry involved.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_4544",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument given concerning the reasonable way to set standards presupposes that",
            "Om": "Premise2: The only contaminants worth measuring are generated by industry",
            "O": "Premise1: There are effective ways to take into account all of the relevant risks posed by allowing different levels of contaminants",
            "P": "Statement1: In setting environmental standards for industry and others to meet, it is inadvisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve. Statement2: Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. Statement3: So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Early in the development of a new product line, the critical resource is talent. New marketing ventures require a degree of managerial skill disproportionate to their short-term revenue prospects. Statement2: Usually, however, talented managers are assigned only to established high-revenue product lines and, as a result, most new marketing ventures fail. Statement3: Contrary to current practice, the best managers in a company should be assigned to development projects.\nPremise1: The current revenue and profitability of an established product line can be maintained even if the company's best managers are assigned elsewhere.\nPremise2: The more talented a manager is, the less likely he or she is to be interested in undertaking the development of a new product line.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Early in the development of a new product line, the critical resource is talent. New marketing ventures require a degree of managerial skill disproportionate to their short-term revenue prospects. Statement3: Usually, however, talented managers are assigned only to established high-revenue product lines and, as a result, most new marketing ventures fail. Statement4: Contrary to current practice, the managers who is least interested in development projects in a company should be assigned to development projects.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3313",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the author's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The more talented a manager is, the less likely he or she is to be interested in undertaking the development of a new product line.",
            "O": "Premise1: The current revenue and profitability of an established product line can be maintained even if the company's best managers are assigned elsewhere.",
            "P": "Statement1: Early in the development of a new product line, the critical resource is talent. New marketing ventures require a degree of managerial skill disproportionate to their short-term revenue prospects. Statement2: Usually, however, talented managers are assigned only to established high-revenue product lines and, as a result, most new marketing ventures fail. Statement3: Contrary to current practice, the best managers in a company should be assigned to development projects."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Poetry journal patron : everybody who publishes in the brick wall review has to agree in advance that if a poem is printed in one of its regular issues, the magazine also has the right to reprint it, without monetary compensation, in its annual anthology. The brick wall review makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses. Statement2: So, if your magazine also published an anthology of poems first printed in your magazine, you could depend less on donations. Statement3: After all, most poems published in your magazine are very similar to those published in the brick wall review.\nPremise1: The brick wall review's annual poetry anthology always contains a number of poems by famous poets not published in the regular issues of the magazine.\nPremise2: The only compensation poets receive for publishing in the regular issues of the magazines under discussion are free copies of the issues in which their poems appear.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Poetry journal patron : everybody who publishes in the brick wall review has to agree in advance that if a poem is printed in one of its regular issues, the magazine doesn't has the right to reprint it, in its annual anthology. The brick wall review depend money from other way to cover most operating expenses. Statement3: Because most poems published in your magazine are little similar to those published in the brick wall Statement4: If your magazine also published an anthology of poems first printed in your magazine, you could depend much on donations",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3069",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the patron's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The only compensation poets receive for publishing in the regular issues of the magazines under discussion are free copies of the issues in which their poems appear.",
            "O": "Premise1: The brick wall review's annual poetry anthology always contains a number of poems by famous poets not published in the regular issues of the magazine.",
            "P": "Statement1: Poetry journal patron : everybody who publishes in the brick wall review has to agree in advance that if a poem is printed in one of its regular issues, the magazine also has the right to reprint it, without monetary compensation, in its annual anthology. The brick wall review makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses. Statement2: So, if your magazine also published an anthology of poems first printed in your magazine, you could depend less on donations. Statement3: After all, most poems published in your magazine are very similar to those published in the brick wall review."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Although the discount stores in goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a spendless discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. Statement2: In the five years since the opening of colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with colson's.\nPremise1: Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since colson's opened have been discount stores.\nPremise2: At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The discount stores in goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a spendless discount department store that just opened, there will be fewer and fewer stores. Statement2: In the five years since the opening of colson's, a nondiscount department store, no discount store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with colson's.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3390",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.",
            "O": "Premise1: Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since colson's opened have been discount stores.",
            "P": "Statement1: Although the discount stores in goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a spendless discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. Statement2: In the five years since the opening of colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with colson's."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Scientists have discovered a new species of butterfly that lives only in a small region of central america and is active only at night. Statement2: During the day, it rests in treetops, where its green color matches the foliage perfectly. Statement3: Therefore, the scientists must have discovered the butterfly at night.\nPremise1: There is no way for the scientists to detect the butterfly during the day.\nPremise2: The butterfly cannot survive in areas outside of central america.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Scientists have discovered a new species of butterfly that lives only in a small region of central america and is active only at night. Statement2: During the day, it rests in treetops, where its green color matches the foliage perfectly. Statement3: Therefore, the scientists must have discovered the butterfly in central america.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_903",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The butterfly cannot survive in areas outside of central america.",
            "O": "Premise1: There is no way for the scientists to detect the butterfly during the day.",
            "P": "Statement1: Scientists have discovered a new species of butterfly that lives only in a small region of central america and is active only at night. Statement2: During the day, it rests in treetops, where its green color matches the foliage perfectly. Statement3: Therefore, the scientists must have discovered the butterfly at night."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 country's employment in the manufacturing industry has dramatically decreased over the last thirty years. During that same period, the country has led the world in developing automation. Statement2: Therefore, automation is the reason behind the decreased unemployment in the manufacturing industry.\nPremise1: The manufacturing industry uses automation.\nPremise2: The manufacturing industry is driving the automation.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A country's employment in the manufacturing industry has dramatically decreased over the last thirty years. During that same period, the country has led the world in developing automation. Statement3: Therefore, decreased employment is the reason behind automation development in the manufacturing industry.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2615",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The author relies most upon which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The manufacturing industry is driving the automation.",
            "O": "Premise1: The manufacturing industry uses automation.",
            "P": "Statement1: A country's employment in the manufacturing industry has dramatically decreased over the last thirty years. During that same period, the country has led the world in developing automation. Statement2: Therefore, automation is the reason behind the decreased unemployment in the manufacturing industry."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Herpetologist : some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to reptiles, claiming that simple stimulus-response explanations of some reptiles'behaviors, such as food gathering, can not account for the complexity of such behavior. Statement2: But since experiments show that reptiles are incapable of making major alterations in their behavior, for example, when faced with significant changes in their environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning.\nPremise1: If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would sometimes be able to make major changes in their behavior.\nPremise2: Reptile behavior appears more complex in the field than laboratory experiments reveal it to be.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Herpetologist : some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to reptiles, claiming that simple stimulus-response explanations of some reptiles'behaviors, such as food gathering, can not account for the complexity of such behavior. Statement2: Although experiments show that reptiles are incapable of making major alterations in their behavior, for example, when faced with significant changes in their environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning, reptile behavior in the field shows a contrary result.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_119",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the herpetologist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Reptile behavior appears more complex in the field than laboratory experiments reveal it to be.",
            "O": "Premise1: If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would sometimes be able to make major changes in their behavior.",
            "P": "Statement1: Herpetologist : some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to reptiles, claiming that simple stimulus-response explanations of some reptiles'behaviors, such as food gathering, can not account for the complexity of such behavior. Statement2: But since experiments show that reptiles are incapable of making major alterations in their behavior, for example, when faced with significant changes in their environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Everyone likes repertory theater. Statement2: Actors like it because playing different roles each night decreases their level of boredom. Statement3: Stagehands like it because changing sets every night means more overtime and, thus, higher pay. Statement4: Theater managers like it because, if plays that reflect audience demand are chosen for production, most performances generate large revenues. Statement5: It is evident, therefore, that more theaters should change to repertory.\nPremise1: In a repertory theater, plays can be rescheduled to meet audience demand.\nPremise2: In a repertory theater, storage space for sets for more than one production must be available.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Not everyone likes repertory theater. Statement2: Actors like it because playing different roles each night decreases their level of boredom. Statement3: Stagehands like it because changing sets every night means more overtime and, thus, higher pay. Statement4: Theater managers don't like it because, if plays are change to repertory, large space is needed, which increase the cost. Statement5: It is controversial, therefore, that more theaters should change to repertory.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2850",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument above would be strengthened if which one of the following were true?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In a repertory theater, storage space for sets for more than one production must be available.",
            "O": "Premise1: In a repertory theater, plays can be rescheduled to meet audience demand.",
            "P": "Statement1: Everyone likes repertory theater. Statement2: Actors like it because playing different roles each night decreases their level of boredom. Statement3: Stagehands like it because changing sets every night means more overtime and, thus, higher pay. Statement4: Theater managers like it because, if plays that reflect audience demand are chosen for production, most performances generate large revenues. Statement5: It is evident, therefore, that more theaters should change to repertory."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Anthropologist : one of the distinctive traits of humans is the ability to support a large brain with a small gut, which requires getting more calories from less food. Statement2: It was likely the development of cooking that made this possible. Statement3: After all, our ancestors developed large brains around the time that they began to control fire. Statement4: And even today, people who choose to eat only raw food have difficulty getting enough calories.\nPremise1: The human body uses more calories to process raw food than it uses to process cooked food.\nPremise2: Raw meat contains more calories than a similar quantity of raw vegetables.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Anthropologist : one of the distinctive traits of humans is the ability to support a large brain with a small gut, which requires getting more calories from less food, and meat contains the most calories in all food.. Statement2: The development of cooking makes that better.. Statement3: After all, our ancestors developed large brains around the time that they began to control fire. Statement4: And even today, people who choose to eat only raw meat can also get enough calories.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_2357",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the anthropologist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Raw meat contains more calories than a similar quantity of raw vegetables.",
            "O": "Premise1: The human body uses more calories to process raw food than it uses to process cooked food.",
            "P": "Statement1: Anthropologist : one of the distinctive traits of humans is the ability to support a large brain with a small gut, which requires getting more calories from less food. Statement2: It was likely the development of cooking that made this possible. Statement3: After all, our ancestors developed large brains around the time that they began to control fire. Statement4: And even today, people who choose to eat only raw food have difficulty getting enough calories."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Proposed new safety rules for the beach city airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. Statement2: In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily. The city 's operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane. Statement3: Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.\nPremise1: The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per flight.\nPremise2: If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in beach city.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Proposed new safety rules for the beach city airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. Statement2: In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily, as a possible increase in the number of passengers per flight is considered. The city 's operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists who spend relatively more come by plane. Statement4: Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_1130",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument depends on assuming which of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: If the proposed safety rules are adopted, the reduction in tourist numbers will not result mainly from a reduction in the number of tourists who spend relatively little in beach city.",
            "O": "Premise1: The response to the adoption of the new safety rules would not include an increase in the number of passengers per flight.",
            "P": "Statement1: Proposed new safety rules for the beach city airport would lengthen considerably the minimum time between takeoffs from the airport. Statement2: In consequence, the airport would be able to accommodate 10 percent fewer flights than currently use the airport daily. The city 's operating budget depends heavily on taxes generated by tourist spending, and most of the tourists come by plane. Statement3: Therefore, the proposed new safety rules, if adopted, will reduce the revenue available for the operating budget."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 poor people. Statement2: Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $ 10.00, because a $ 20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders\nPremise1: The outlay of $10. 00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor.\nPremise2: Poor residents of orkney 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 9 fare tokens be sold for $ 10.00 to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city's poor people. Statement2: Critics suggested alternatively that 18 fare tokens be sold for $ 19.00, because the strength of the discount is more important than the one-time exchange amount.increasing the amount of one-time exchange can reduce the number of exchanges and reduce the workload.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1045",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The alternative proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Poor residents of orkney 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 bus riders who are poor.",
            "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 poor people. Statement2: Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $ 10.00, because a $ 20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders"
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Lightbox, inc., owns almost all of the movie theaters in washington county and has announced plans to double the number of movie screens it has in the county within five years. Yet attendance at lightbox's theaters is only just large enough for profitability now and the county's sent3: population is not expected to increase over the next ten years. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, if there is indeed no increase in population, lightbox's new screens are unlikely to prove profitable.\nPremise1: Though little change in the size of the population is expected, a pronounced shift toward a younger, more affluent, and more entertainment-oriented population is expected to occur.\nPremise2: Spending on video purchases, as well as spending on video rentals, is currently no longer increasing.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Lightbox, inc., owns almost all of the movie theaters in washington county and has announced plans to double the number of movie screens it has in the county within five years. Yet attendance at lightbox's theaters is only just large enough for profitability now and the county's Statement3: Entertainment-oriented population is not expected to increase over the next ten years. Statement4: Clearly, therefore, if there is indeed no increase in population, lightbox's new screens not only increase the cost, but also are unlikely to prove profitable.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_435",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true about washington county, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Spending on video purchases, as well as spending on video rentals, is currently no longer increasing.",
            "O": "Premise1: Though little change in the size of the population is expected, a pronounced shift toward a younger, more affluent, and more entertainment-oriented population is expected to occur.",
            "P": "Statement1: Lightbox, inc., owns almost all of the movie theaters in washington county and has announced plans to double the number of movie screens it has in the county within five years. Yet attendance at lightbox's theaters is only just large enough for profitability now and the county's sent3: population is not expected to increase over the next ten years. Statement2: Clearly, therefore, if there is indeed no increase in population, lightbox's new screens are unlikely to prove profitable."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 : over the last 20 years the demand in north america for japanese-made automobiles has increased, whereas the japanese demand for north american-made automobiles has been stagnant. Statement2: Until recently, this imbalance could plausibly be attributed to japanese models'superior fuel efficiency and reliability, but now cars made in north america are by these standards the equal of any japanese model. What north american exporters continue to ignore is that the japanese drive on the left side of the road. Statement3: Therefore, one obstacle to reducing the automotive trade imbalance will be removed if north american manufacturers simply produce more cars with right-side steering wheels.\nPremise1: If the japanese drive on the left side of the road, then they are not inclined to buy cars with left-side steering wheels.\nPremise2: Given a choice between similar japanese and north american models, all with right-side steering wheels, most japanese would choose the north american model.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Columnist : over the last 20 years the demand in north america for japanese-made automobiles has increased, whereas the japanese demand for north american-made automobiles has been stagnant. Statement2: Until recently, this imbalance could plausibly be attributed to japanese models'superior fuel efficiency and reliability, but now cars made in north america are by these standards much better than any japanese model. What north american exporters continue to ignore is that the japanese drive on the left side of the road. Statement4: Therefore, one obstacle to reducing the automotive trade imbalance will be removed if north american manufacturers simply produce more cars with right-side steering wheels.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_142",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the columnist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Given a choice between similar japanese and north american models, all with right-side steering wheels, most japanese would choose the north american model.",
            "O": "Premise1: If the japanese drive on the left side of the road, then they are not inclined to buy cars with left-side steering wheels.",
            "P": "Statement1: Columnist : over the last 20 years the demand in north america for japanese-made automobiles has increased, whereas the japanese demand for north american-made automobiles has been stagnant. Statement2: Until recently, this imbalance could plausibly be attributed to japanese models'superior fuel efficiency and reliability, but now cars made in north america are by these standards the equal of any japanese model. What north american exporters continue to ignore is that the japanese drive on the left side of the road. Statement3: Therefore, one obstacle to reducing the automotive trade imbalance will be removed if north american manufacturers simply produce more cars with right-side steering wheels."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Editorialist : in a large corporation, one of the functions of the corporation's president is to promote the key interests of the shareholders. Statement2: Therefore, the president has a duty to keep the corporation's profits high.\nPremise1: Keeping a corporation's profits high is likely to advance the important interests of the corporation's shareholders.\nPremise2: In considering where to invest, most potential shareholders are interested in more than just the profitability of a corporation.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Editorialist : in a large corporation, one of the functions of the corporation's president is to promote the key interests of the shareholders. Statement2: However, the duty of the president is not just to keep the corporation's profits high.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_145",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the editorialist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: In considering where to invest, most potential shareholders are interested in more than just the profitability of a corporation.",
            "O": "Premise1: Keeping a corporation's profits high is likely to advance the important interests of the corporation's shareholders.",
            "P": "Statement1: Editorialist : in a large corporation, one of the functions of the corporation's president is to promote the key interests of the shareholders. Statement2: Therefore, the president has a duty to keep the corporation's profits high."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 vomeronasal organ ( vno ) is found inside the noses of various animals. While its structural development and function are clearer in other animals, most humans have a vno that is detectable, though only microscopically. Statement2: When researchers have been able to stimulate vno cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations. Statement3: It seems, then, that the vno, though not completely understood, is a functioning sensory organ in most humans.\nPremise1: It is not known whether the researchers succeeded in stimulating only vno cells in the human subjects' noses.\nPremise2: Relative to its occurrence in certain other animals, the human vno appears to be anatomically rudimentary and underdeveloped.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The vomeronasal organ ( vno ) is found inside the noses of various animals. While its structural development and function are clearer in other animals, most humans have a vno that is detectable, though only microscopically. Statement3: When researchers have been able to stimulate vno cells in humans precisely, the subjects have reported experiencing clear smell sensations. Statement4: It seems, then, that the vno, though not completely understood, is a fully-developed sensory organ in most humans.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1973",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Relative to its occurrence in certain other animals, the human vno appears to be anatomically rudimentary and underdeveloped.",
            "O": "Premise1: It is not known whether the researchers succeeded in stimulating only vno cells in the human subjects' noses.",
            "P": "Statement1: The vomeronasal organ ( vno ) is found inside the noses of various animals. While its structural development and function are clearer in other animals, most humans have a vno that is detectable, though only microscopically. Statement2: When researchers have been able to stimulate vno cells in humans, the subjects have reported experiencing subtle smell sensations. Statement3: It seems, then, that the vno, though not completely understood, is a functioning sensory organ in most humans."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 new mayor is undeniably bold. Statement2: His assertions are made with utter certainty and confidence. Statement3: While these kinds of assertions may make him popular with the public, they also demonstrate that he is not an introspective person.\nPremise1: Introspective people do not make assertions with utter certainty and confidence.\nPremise2: Politicians who make assertions with utter certainty and confidence are popular with the public.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Journalist : the new mayor is undeniably bold. Statement2: His assertions are made with utter certainty and confidence. Statement3: These kinds of utter certainty and confidence will make him popular with the public, and they also demonstrate that he is an introspective person.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_2787",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the journalist's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Politicians who make assertions with utter certainty and confidence are popular with the public.",
            "O": "Premise1: Introspective people do not make assertions with utter certainty and confidence.",
            "P": "Statement1: Journalist : the new mayor is undeniably bold. Statement2: His assertions are made with utter certainty and confidence. Statement3: While these kinds of assertions may make him popular with the public, they also demonstrate that he is not an introspective person."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 smoker trying to quit is more likely to succeed if his or her doctor greatly exaggerates the dangers of smoking. Statement2: Similar strategies can be used to break other habits. Statement3: But since such strategies involve deception, individuals can not easily adopt them unless a doctor or some other third party provides the warning.\nPremise1: People generally do not find it easy to deceive themselves.\nPremise2: A doctor is justified in deceiving a patient whenever doing so is likely to make the patient healthier.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A smoker trying to quit is more likely to succeed if his or her doctor greatly exaggerates the dangers of smoking. Statement2: Similar strategies can be used to break other habits. Statement3: Despite such strategies involve deception, a doctor or some other third party still provides the warning.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_407",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A doctor is justified in deceiving a patient whenever doing so is likely to make the patient healthier.",
            "O": "Premise1: People generally do not find it easy to deceive themselves.",
            "P": "Statement1: A smoker trying to quit is more likely to succeed if his or her doctor greatly exaggerates the dangers of smoking. Statement2: Similar strategies can be used to break other habits. Statement3: But since such strategies involve deception, individuals can not easily adopt them unless a doctor or some other third party provides the warning."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Mayor : false alarms from home security systems waste so much valuable police time that in many communities police have stopped responding to alarms from homes whose systems frequently produce false alarms. Statement2: This policy reduces wastage of police time but results in a loss of protection for some residents. Statement3: To achieve a comparable reduction in wastage without reducing protection for residents, the council has enacted a measure to fine residents for repeated false alarms.\nPremise1: The threat of fines is likely to cause many residents to deactivate their security systems.\nPremise2: Many home security systems have never produced false alarms.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Mayor : false alarms from home security systems waste so much valuable police time that in many communities police have stopped responding to alarms from homes whose systems frequently produce false alarms. Statement2: This policy reduces wastage of police time but results in a loss of protection for some residents. Statement3: To achieve a comparable reduction in wastage without reducing protection for residents, the council has enacted a measure to charge residents for police respondance.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_2575",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on whether the measure enacted by the council will achieve its goal?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many home security systems have never produced false alarms.",
            "O": "Premise1: The threat of fines is likely to cause many residents to deactivate their security systems.",
            "P": "Statement1: Mayor : false alarms from home security systems waste so much valuable police time that in many communities police have stopped responding to alarms from homes whose systems frequently produce false alarms. Statement2: This policy reduces wastage of police time but results in a loss of protection for some residents. Statement3: To achieve a comparable reduction in wastage without reducing protection for residents, the council has enacted a measure to fine residents for repeated false alarms."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: It is undeniable that regular consumption of fast food can lead to serious health problems. However, most people agree that fast food companies should not be held liable for the effects their product has on the health of consumers. Statement2: Few people, however, disagree with holding tobacco companies liable for the serious health problems caused by cigarette usage. Statement3: Therefore, fast food must not be as unhealthy as cigarettes.\nPremise1: That health concerns are the only reason people believe tobacco companies should be held liable\nPremise2: That the long-term health impact is the same for cigarettes as fast food\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: It is undeniable that regular consumption of fast food can lead to serious health problems. Therefore, most people agree that fast food companies should be held liable for the effects their product has on the health of consumers. Statement3: Few people, as well, disagree with holding tobacco companies liable for the serious health problems caused by cigarette usage. Statement4: Therefore, fast food must be as unhealthy as cigarettes.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_4237",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is assumed in the passage?",
            "Om": "Premise2: That the long-term health impact is the same for cigarettes as fast food",
            "O": "Premise1: That health concerns are the only reason people believe tobacco companies should be held liable",
            "P": "Statement1: It is undeniable that regular consumption of fast food can lead to serious health problems. However, most people agree that fast food companies should not be held liable for the effects their product has on the health of consumers. Statement2: Few people, however, disagree with holding tobacco companies liable for the serious health problems caused by cigarette usage. Statement3: Therefore, fast food must not be as unhealthy as cigarettes."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 member of the british parliament is reputed to have said, \" the first purpose of good social reform is to increase the sum total of human happiness. Statement2: So, any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose. Statement3: Since the reform i propose would make my constituents happy, it is a good social reform. \"\nPremise1: Increasing some people's happiness might not increase the sum total of human happiness if others are made unhappy.\nPremise2: The proposed reform would affect only the member of parliament's constituents and would make them happy.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: A member of the british parliament is reputed to have said, \" the first purpose of good social reform is to increase human happiness. Statement2: So, any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose. Statement3: Since the reform i propose would make people happy, it is a good social reform. \"",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3517",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument attributed to the member of parliament?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The proposed reform would affect only the member of parliament's constituents and would make them happy.",
            "O": "Premise1: Increasing some people's happiness might not increase the sum total of human happiness if others are made unhappy.",
            "P": "Statement1: A member of the british parliament is reputed to have said, \" the first purpose of good social reform is to increase the sum total of human happiness. Statement2: So, any reform which makes somebody happy is achieving its purpose. Statement3: Since the reform i propose would make my constituents happy, it is a good social reform. \""
        }
    },
    {
        "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: When a group of children who have been watching television programs that include acts of violence is sent to play with a group of children who have been watching programs that do not include acts of violence, the children who have been watching violent programs commit a much greater number of violent acts in their play than do the children who have been watching nonviolent programs. Statement2: Therefore, children at play can be prevented from committing violent acts by not being allowed to watch violence on television.\nPremise1: There are no other differences between the two groups of children that might account for the difference in violent behavior.\nPremise2: Violent actions and passive observation of violent actions are not related.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: When a group of children who have been watching television programs that include acts of violence is sent to play with a group of children who have been watching programs that do not include acts of violence, the children who have been watching violent programs commit a close number of violent acts in their play than do the children who have been watching nonviolent programs. Statement2: Therefore, children at play can not be prevented from committing violent acts by not being allowed to watch violence on television.",
        "qtype": 1,
        "id_string": "train_3201",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "The argument in the passage assumes which one of the following?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Violent actions and passive observation of violent actions are not related.",
            "O": "Premise1: There are no other differences between the two groups of children that might account for the difference in violent behavior.",
            "P": "Statement1: When a group of children who have been watching television programs that include acts of violence is sent to play with a group of children who have been watching programs that do not include acts of violence, the children who have been watching violent programs commit a much greater number of violent acts in their play than do the children who have been watching nonviolent programs. Statement2: Therefore, children at play can be prevented from committing violent acts by not being allowed to watch violence on television."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Physician : in an experiment, 50 patients with chronic back pain were divided into two groups. Statement2: Small magnets were applied to the backs of one group ; the other group received no treatment. Most of the patients in the first group, but very few in the second group, reported a significant reduction in pain. Statement3: This shows that magnetic fields are probably effective at relieving some back pain.\nPremise1: A patient's merely knowing that a treatment has been applied can lead to improvement in his or her condition.\nPremise2: There was wide variation in the specific causes of the chronic back pain suffered by the patients in the experiment.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Physician : in an experiment, 50 patients with chronic back pain were divided into two groups. Statement2: Small magnets were applied to the backs of one group ; the other group received medical treatment. Most of the patients in the first group and the second group, reported no significant reduction in pain. Statement4: This shows that magnetic fields and medical are not effective at relieving some back pain.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_475",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, constitutes the logically strongest counter to the physician's argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: There was wide variation in the specific causes of the chronic back pain suffered by the patients in the experiment.",
            "O": "Premise1: A patient's merely knowing that a treatment has been applied can lead to improvement in his or her condition.",
            "P": "Statement1: Physician : in an experiment, 50 patients with chronic back pain were divided into two groups. Statement2: Small magnets were applied to the backs of one group ; the other group received no treatment. Most of the patients in the first group, but very few in the second group, reported a significant reduction in pain. Statement3: This shows that magnetic fields are probably effective at relieving some back pain."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: High schools should only teach abstinence. Statement2: Students who practice abstinence will never experience an unplanned pregnancy or contract a sexually-transmitted disease.\nPremise1: Religious organizations support the teaching of abstinence.\nPremise2: Failing to teach about contraceptives increases the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: High schools should teach contraceptives. Statement2: Students who are not told contraceptives will experience an unplanned pregnancy or some other disease.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_3493",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Each of the following weakens the argument except:",
            "Om": "Premise2: Failing to teach about contraceptives increases the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.",
            "O": "Premise1: Religious organizations support the teaching of abstinence.",
            "P": "Statement1: High schools should only teach abstinence. Statement2: Students who practice abstinence will never experience an unplanned pregnancy or contract a sexually-transmitted disease."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Environmentalist : when bacteria degrade household cleaning products, vapors that are toxic to humans are produced. Statement2: Unfortunately, household cleaning products are often found in landfills. Statement3: Thus, the common practice of converting landfills into public parks is damaging human health.\nPremise1: In at least some landfills that have been converted into public parks there are bacteria that degrade household cleaning products.\nPremise2: Converting a landfill into a public park will cause no damage to human health unless toxic vapors are produced in that landfill and humans are exposed to them.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Environmentalist : when bacteria degrade household cleaning products, vapors that are not toxic to humans are produced. Statement2: Besides, household cleaning products are often found in landfills. Statement3: Thus, the common practice of converting landfills into public parks is not damaging human health.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_646",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption the environmentalist's argument requires?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Converting a landfill into a public park will cause no damage to human health unless toxic vapors are produced in that landfill and humans are exposed to them.",
            "O": "Premise1: In at least some landfills that have been converted into public parks there are bacteria that degrade household cleaning products.",
            "P": "Statement1: Environmentalist : when bacteria degrade household cleaning products, vapors that are toxic to humans are produced. Statement2: Unfortunately, household cleaning products are often found in landfills. Statement3: Thus, the common practice of converting landfills into public parks is damaging human health."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Pollster : when opinion researchers need a population sample that reflects the demographic characteristics of the national population, they choose their sample on the basis of national census data. Not everyone participates in the national census, despite its being mandatory. Statement2: If, however, census participation became voluntary, as some have proposed, the participation rate would be much lower. Statement3: So if census participation became voluntary, polls designed to discover the opinions of the national population would have less accurate results.\nPremise1: The group of people who would participate in a voluntary national census would differ in its demographic characteristics from the group of people who would participate in a mandatory national census.\nPremise2: Using data from the national census is not the only way for opinion researchers to get a population sample that reflects the demographic characteristics of the national population.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Pollster : when opinion researchers need a population sample that reflects the demographic characteristics of the national population, they choose their sample on the basis of national census data. Not everyone participates in the national census, despite its being mandatory. Statement3: If, however, census participation became voluntary, as some have proposed, the participation rate would be much lower. Statement4: So the current national census data is a good way for pollsters to get a sample of the population that reflects the characteristics of the national population.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1084",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the pollster's argument depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Using data from the national census is not the only way for opinion researchers to get a population sample that reflects the demographic characteristics of the national population.",
            "O": "Premise1: The group of people who would participate in a voluntary national census would differ in its demographic characteristics from the group of people who would participate in a mandatory national census.",
            "P": "Statement1: Pollster : when opinion researchers need a population sample that reflects the demographic characteristics of the national population, they choose their sample on the basis of national census data. Not everyone participates in the national census, despite its being mandatory. Statement2: If, however, census participation became voluntary, as some have proposed, the participation rate would be much lower. Statement3: So if census participation became voluntary, polls designed to discover the opinions of the national population would have less accurate results."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them. Statement2: Therefore, they likely read much more than we do today.\nPremise1: On average, people who lived a century ago had considerably less leisure time than we do today.\nPremise2: The number of books sold today is larger than it was a century ago.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them. Statement2: Therefore, they likely have much more books than we do today.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_1195",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The number of books sold today is larger than it was a century ago.",
            "O": "Premise1: On average, people who lived a century ago had considerably less leisure time than we do today.",
            "P": "Statement1: Compared to us, people who lived a century ago had very few diversions to amuse them. Statement2: Therefore, they likely read much more than we do today."
        }
    },
    {
        "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 withholding information from someone who would find that information painful is sometimes justified, there is no such justification if the person would benefit from having the information. Statement2: Therefore, even though it would be painful for jason to learn that his supervisor is displeased with his work, his colleague jane should nonetheless inform jason of this fact, for knowing that his supervisor was displeased would enable jason to improve his supervisor's opinion of his work.\nPremise1: Jason would benefit if he were able to improve his supervisor's opinion of his work.\nPremise2: Jason might eventually improve his supervisor's opinion of his work even if he never learns that his supervisor is displeased with his work.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Withholding information from someone who would find that information painful is sometimes justified, because the truth will hurt him more than it will help. Statement2: Therefore, it would be painful for jason to learn that his supervisor is displeased with his work, his colleague jane should not inform jason of this fact, for knowing that his supervisor was displeased would put him in a bad mood and make him worse at his job.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_1320",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Jason might eventually improve his supervisor's opinion of his work even if he never learns that his supervisor is displeased with his work.",
            "O": "Premise1: Jason would benefit if he were able to improve his supervisor's opinion of his work.",
            "P": "Statement1: Although withholding information from someone who would find that information painful is sometimes justified, there is no such justification if the person would benefit from having the information. Statement2: Therefore, even though it would be painful for jason to learn that his supervisor is displeased with his work, his colleague jane should nonetheless inform jason of this fact, for knowing that his supervisor was displeased would enable jason to improve his supervisor's opinion of his work."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Mate is a beverage found in much of south america. Statement2: While it is uncertain where mate was first made, there are more varieties of it found in paraguay than anywhere else. Statement3: Also, mate is used more widely there than anywhere else. Statement4: Therefore, paraguay is likely the place where mate originated.\nPremise1: Typically, the longer a beverage has been in use in a particular place, the more widely that beverage is used there.\nPremise2: Many paraguayans believe that the best mate is found in paraguay.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Mate is a beverage found in much of south america. Statement2: While it is uncertain where mate was first made, there are more varieties of it found in paraguay than anywhere else. Statement3: Also, mate usually have better quality there than anywhere else. Statement4: Therefore, paraguay is likely the place where mate originated.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3523",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Many paraguayans believe that the best mate is found in paraguay.",
            "O": "Premise1: Typically, the longer a beverage has been in use in a particular place, the more widely that beverage is used there.",
            "P": "Statement1: Mate is a beverage found in much of south america. Statement2: While it is uncertain where mate was first made, there are more varieties of it found in paraguay than anywhere else. Statement3: Also, mate is used more widely there than anywhere else. Statement4: Therefore, paraguay is likely the place where mate originated."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Statement2: Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke proto-indo-european, the language from which all indoeuropean languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because protoindo-european lacks a word for\" sea, \" yet contains words for\" winter, \"\" snow, \" and\" wolf. \"\nPremise1: Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.\nPremise2: A word meaning \"fish\"was used by the people who spoke proto-indo-european.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Statement2: Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke proto-indo-european, the language from which all indoeuropean languages descended, lived in a dry and cold climate, isolated from ocean or lake, because protoindo-european lacks a word for\" sea, \"\"lake,\"yetcontains words for\" winter, \"\" snow, \" and\" wolf. \"",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_91",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: A word meaning \"fish\"was used by the people who spoke proto-indo-european.",
            "O": "Premise1: Some languages lack words for prominent elements of the environments of their speakers.",
            "P": "Statement1: We can learn about the living conditions of a vanished culture by examining its language. Statement2: Thus, it is likely that the people who spoke proto-indo-european, the language from which all indoeuropean languages descended, lived in a cold climate, isolated from ocean or sea, because protoindo-european lacks a word for\" sea, \" yet contains words for\" winter, \"\" snow, \" and\" wolf. \""
        }
    },
    {
        "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 five senses have traditionally been viewed as distinct yet complementary. Each sense is thought to have its own range of stimuli that are incapable of stimulating the other senses. Statement2: However, recent research has discovered that some people taste a banana and claim that they are tasting blue, or see a color and say that it has a specific smell. Statement3: This shows that such people, called synesthesiacs, have senses that do not respect the usual boundaries between the five recognized senses.\nPremise1: Synesthesiacs demonstrate a general, systematic impairment in their ability to use and understand words.\nPremise2: Synesthesiacs can be temporarily rid of their synesthetic experiences by the use of drugs.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: The five senses have traditionally been viewed as distinct yet complementary. Each sense is thought to have its own range of stimuli that are incapable of stimulating the other senses. Statement3: However, recent research has discovered that some people taste a banana and believe that they are tasting blue, or see a color and has a cognition that it has a specific smell. Statement4: This shows that such people, called synesthesiacs, will never have the same sense with ordinary people.",
        "qtype": 3,
        "id_string": "train_520",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Synesthesiacs can be temporarily rid of their synesthetic experiences by the use of drugs.",
            "O": "Premise1: Synesthesiacs demonstrate a general, systematic impairment in their ability to use and understand words.",
            "P": "Statement1: The five senses have traditionally been viewed as distinct yet complementary. Each sense is thought to have its own range of stimuli that are incapable of stimulating the other senses. Statement2: However, recent research has discovered that some people taste a banana and claim that they are tasting blue, or see a color and say that it has a specific smell. Statement3: This shows that such people, called synesthesiacs, have senses that do not respect the usual boundaries between the five recognized senses."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: College is increasingly unaffordable for everyone that is not independently wealthy, outpacing inflation every year since the early 1970s. Statement2: This year the average cost of tuition at a private, four-year university is more than $ 31,000 per year. In 1971, tuition cost less than $ 2,000, even after adjusting for inflation. Statement3: The trend is similar at public, four-year institutions. Statement4: Fortunately, with the advent of the internet, independent learning is easier than ever before. Statement5: Students can learn hard skills online for relatively minimal costs, like coding and web design. Online courses can also replicate a traditional college education, with options such as math, science, and liberal arts courses. Statement6: As a result, high school students would be wise to weigh their options before choosing to attend a traditional four-y ear college.\nPremise1: Employers increasingly value work experience and self-starters more than formal education.\nPremise2: Students who do not attend traditional college miss out on important life experiences.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: College is increasingly unaffordable for everyone that is not independently wealthy, outpacing inflation every year since the early 1970s. Statement2: This year the average cost of tuition at a private, four-year university is more than $ 31,000 per year. In 1971, tuition cost less than $ 2,000, even after adjusting for inflation. Statement4: The trend is similar at public, four-year institutions. Statement5: Fortunately, with the advent of the internet, independent learning is easier than ever before. Statement6: Students can learn hard skills online for relatively minimal costs, like coding and web design. Online courses can also replicate a traditional college education, with options such as math, science, and liberal arts courses. But learning online is independent with less time and opportunity to communicate with professors and no life with classmates that is always seen as an important lesson. Statement8: As a result, high school students would be wise to weigh their options before choosing not to attend a traditional four-y ear college.",
        "qtype": 2,
        "id_string": "train_3009",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following strengthens the argument?",
            "Om": "Premise2: Students who do not attend traditional college miss out on important life experiences.",
            "O": "Premise1: Employers increasingly value work experience and self-starters more than formal education.",
            "P": "Statement1: College is increasingly unaffordable for everyone that is not independently wealthy, outpacing inflation every year since the early 1970s. Statement2: This year the average cost of tuition at a private, four-year university is more than $ 31,000 per year. In 1971, tuition cost less than $ 2,000, even after adjusting for inflation. Statement3: The trend is similar at public, four-year institutions. Statement4: Fortunately, with the advent of the internet, independent learning is easier than ever before. Statement5: Students can learn hard skills online for relatively minimal costs, like coding and web design. Online courses can also replicate a traditional college education, with options such as math, science, and liberal arts courses. Statement6: As a result, high school students would be wise to weigh their options before choosing to attend a traditional four-y ear college."
        }
    },
    {
        "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: Environmentalist : an increased number of oil spills and the consequent damage to the environment indicate the need for stricter safety standards for the oil industry. Statement2: Since the industry refuses to take action, it is the national government that must regulate industry safety standards. In particular, the government has to at least require oil companies to put double hulls on their tankers and to assume financial responsibility for accidents. Statement3: Industry representative : the industry alone should be responsible for devising safety standards because of its expertise in handling oil and its understanding of the cost entailed. Statement4: Implementing the double-hull proposal is not currently feasible because it creates new safety issues. Statement5: Furthermore, the cost would be burdensome to the industry and consumers.\nPremise1: The only effective sources of increased stringency in safety standards for oil tankers are action by the industry itself or national government regulation.\nPremise2: The requirement of two hulls on oil tankers, although initially costly, will save money over time by reducing cleanup costs.\n\nPlease write the modified argument below: ",
        "output": "Statement1: Environmentalist : an increased number of oil spills and the consequent damage to the environment indicate the need for stricter safety standards for the oil industry. Statement2: Since the industry refuses to take action, it is the national government that must regulate industry safety standards. In particular, the government has to at least require oil companies to put double hulls on their tankers and to assume financial responsibility for accidents. Statement4: Industry representative : the industry alone should be responsible for devising safety standards because of its expertise in handling oil and its understanding of the cost entailed. Statement5: Implementing the double-hull proposal is currently feasible because it doesn't creat new safety issues. Statement6: Furthermore, the cost wouldn't be burdensome to the industry and consumers.",
        "qtype": 0,
        "id_string": "train_18",
        "input_info": {
            "Q": "Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument of the environmentalist depends?",
            "Om": "Premise2: The requirement of two hulls on oil tankers, although initially costly, will save money over time by reducing cleanup costs.",
            "O": "Premise1: The only effective sources of increased stringency in safety standards for oil tankers are action by the industry itself or national government regulation.",
            "P": "Statement1: Environmentalist : an increased number of oil spills and the consequent damage to the environment indicate the need for stricter safety standards for the oil industry. Statement2: Since the industry refuses to take action, it is the national government that must regulate industry safety standards. In particular, the government has to at least require oil companies to put double hulls on their tankers and to assume financial responsibility for accidents. Statement3: Industry representative : the industry alone should be responsible for devising safety standards because of its expertise in handling oil and its understanding of the cost entailed. Statement4: Implementing the double-hull proposal is not currently feasible because it creates new safety issues. Statement5: Furthermore, the cost would be burdensome to the industry and consumers."
        }
    }
]