Given Argument (Restated):

• Premises:

  1. If it is the Day of the Dead (p), then there are ofrendas (q) if and only if the spirits will be honored (r). ( $p \rightarrow (q \leftrightarrow r)$ )
  2. There are no ofrendas. ( $\neg q$ )

• Conclusion: 3. Therefore, the spirits will not be honored. ( $\neg r$ )

Symbolic Form:

1. $p \rightarrow (q \leftrightarrow r)$
2. $\neg q$
3. $\therefore \neg r$

The given argument is valid because, from the premises, we know that:

• Since $\neg q$ (no ofrendas), and $q \leftrightarrow r$ (there are ofrendas if and only if the spirits will be honored), this implies $\neg r$ (the spirits are not honored).

New Logical Argument (Different from the standard form):

In Words:

1. If it is raining (p), then the ground will be wet (q).
2. The ground is not wet ( $\neg q$ ).
3. Therefore, it is not raining ( $\neg p$ ).

This argument follows the form of Modus Tollens, a valid argument form. Let's modify it slightly to create an invalid argument:

New Argument (Invalid):

In Words:

1. If it is raining (p), then the ground will be wet (q).
2. It is not raining ( $\neg p$ ).
3. Therefore, the ground is not wet ( $\neg q$ ).

This new argument does not necessarily follow because even if it's not raining, the ground could be wet due to other reasons (such as sprinklers). Therefore, this argument is invalid.

In Symbolic Form:

1. $p \rightarrow q$
2. $\neg p$
3. $\therefore \neg q$

This is an invalid argument because it does not follow any valid logical rule, such as Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens.

Steps to Verify Validity Using a Truth Table:

To verify if the argument is valid or invalid, let's use a truth table.

p	q	$p \rightarrow q$	$\neg p$	$\neg q$	Conclusion $\neg q$
T	T	T	F	F	F
T	F	F	F	T	T
F	T	T	T	F	F
F	F	T	T	T	T

Looking at the truth table, the conclusion $\neg q$ is not always true when $\neg p$ is true (e.g., in the third row, $p$ is false, but $q$ is true). Therefore, this argument is invalid.

Summary:

• Original Argument: Invalid.
• Explanation: The argument falsely concludes that $\neg q$ based on $\neg p$, but this does not necessarily follow.

---

Do you need more details or have any questions?
Here are some related questions:

1. What is Modus Ponens, and how does it differ from Modus Tollens?
2. What are common forms of invalid arguments in propositional logic?
3. How do truth tables help in verifying the validity of an argument?
4. What other rules of inference could be used in constructing valid arguments?
5. Can an argument be valid but not sound? Explain with an example.

Tip: In logic, validity means that the structure of the argument guarantees the conclusion, regardless of the truth of the premises.