Consider the following premises. For all y_2, if y_2 were poor, then y_2 is a politician. For all y_2, y_2 is not a politician. There is at least one y_2 for which if y_2 were a politician, then y_2 is poor. For all y_2, if y_2 were a politician, then y_2 is poor. Can we infer the following from them? For all y_2, y_2 is poor.
 From the fact that for all y_2, if y_2 were poor, then y_2 is a politician, and that for all y_2, if y_2 were a politician, then y_2 is poor we can infer that for all y_2, y_2 is poor if and only if y_2 is a politician. From the fact that for all y_2, y_2 is poor if and only if y_2 is a politician we can infer that for all y_2, if y_2 were poor, then y_2 is a politician. From the fact that there is at least one y_2 for which if y_2 were a politician, then y_2 is poor, and that for all y_2, if y_2 were poor, then y_2 is a politician we can infer that there is at least one y_2 for which y_2 is a politician if and only if y_2 is poor. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one y_2 for which y_2 is a politician if and only if y_2 is poor, and that for all y_2, y_2 is not a politician we can infer that there is at least one y_2 for which y_2 is not poor, which contradicts that For all y_2, y_2 is poor. Therefore, the answer is no.