Consider the following premises. forall x_16: P_16(x_16). exists x_16: W_1(x_16) -> P_16(x_16). forall x_16: P_16(x_16) -> W_1(x_16). Can we infer forall x_16: ~(W_1(x_16) or R_3(x_16)) from them?
 From forall x_16: P_16(x_16) -> W_1(x_16), exists x_16: W_1(x_16) -> P_16(x_16) we can infer exists x_16: P_16(x_16) <-> W_1(x_16). From exists x_16: P_16(x_16) <-> W_1(x_16) we can infer exists x_16: P_16(x_16) -> W_1(x_16). From exists x_16: P_16(x_16) -> W_1(x_16), forall x_16: P_16(x_16) we can infer exists x_16: W_1(x_16). Finally, from exists x_16: W_1(x_16) we can infer exists x_16: W_1(x_16) or R_3(x_16), which contradicts forall x_16: ~(W_1(x_16) or R_3(x_16)). Therefore, the answer is no.