For each symbolic argument below, identify the valid reasoning structure or invalid reasoning error it represents. Argument #1: Premise: parrow q Premise: p p Conclusion: a Logical form: Select an answer square Argument #2: Premise: parrow q Premise: -p =p Conclusion: -q Logical form: square Select an answer Argument #3: Premise: parrow q Premise: q Conclusion: ..p Logical form: Select an answer square Argument #4: Premise: parrow q Premise; =q Conclusion: -p Logical form: Select an answer

To identify the valid reasoning structure or invalid reasoning error for each symbolic argument, we need to analyze the logical form of each argument.**Argument #1:**- Premise: - Premise: - Conclusion: This argument does not follow a standard logical form because the conclusion is unrelated to the premises. Therefore, this represents an **invalid reasoning error** known as "irrelevant conclusion" or "non sequitur."**Argument #2:**- Premise: - Premise: - Conclusion: This argument is invalid because it contradicts itself. If and are true, then must be true, not . This represents an **invalid reasoning error** known as "denying the antecedent."**Argument #3:**- Premise: - Premise: - Conclusion: This argument is invalid because it assumes that if is true, then must also be true, which is not necessarily the case. This represents an **invalid reasoning error** known as "affirming the consequent."**Argument #4:**- Premise: - Premise: - Conclusion: This argument is invalid because it incorrectly concludes from . The presence of does not imply . This represents an **invalid reasoning error** similar to "affirming the consequent."In summary:- Argument #1: Invalid reasoning error (irrelevant conclusion).- Argument #2: Invalid reasoning error (denying the antecedent).- Argument #3: Invalid reasoning error (affirming the consequent).- Argument #4: Invalid reasoning error (similar to affirming the consequent).