For each symbolic argument below,identify the valid reasoning structure or inv represents. Argument #1: Premise: parrow q Premise: p p Conclusion: q Logical form V Select an answer Transitive Property Law of Detachment Fallacy of the Inverse Fallacy of the Converse Premi Law of Contraposition Premise: -D =p Conclusion: -q Argument #2 Logical form: Select an answer Argument #3: Premise: parrow q Premise: a q Conclusion: Logical form: Select an answer Argument #4: Premise: parrow q Premise: - a =q Conclusion: -p Logical form: Select an answer

Let's analyze each argument and identify the logical reasoning structure it represents:**Argument #1:**- Premise: - Premise: - Conclusion: This is an example of the **Law of Detachment** (also known as Modus Ponens). The Law of Detachment states that if a conditional statement ( ) is true and its antecedent ( ) is true, then the consequent ( ) must also be true.**Argument #2:**- Premise: - Conclusion: This argument seems to be missing some context or additional premises. However, based on the given information, this resembles the **Fallacy of the Inverse**. The Fallacy of the Inverse occurs when one assumes that if is true, then must also be true, which is not a valid form of reasoning.**Argument #3:**- Premise: - Premise: - Conclusion: This is an example of the **Fallacy of the Converse**. The Fallacy of the Converse occurs when one assumes that if is true, then must also be true, which is not necessarily valid.**Argument #4:**- Premise: - Premise: - Conclusion: This is an example of the **Law of Contraposition**. The Law of Contraposition states that a conditional statement ( ) is logically equivalent to its contrapositive ( ). If the contrapositive is true, then the original statement is also true.In summary:- Argument #1: Law of Detachment- Argument #2: Fallacy of the Inverse- Argument #3: Fallacy of the Converse- Argument #4: Law of Contraposition