Consider the following premises. For all y_2, y_2 will not work or y_2 will drive a car. For all y_2, y_2 will work or y_2 is excited. For all y_2, if y_2 were excited, then y_2 is not a cashier. For all y_2, y_2 is a cashier. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: There is at least one y_2 for which y_2 will not drive a car.
 From the fact that for all y_2, y_2 will work or y_2 is excited, and that for all y_2, y_2 will not work or y_2 will drive a car we can infer that for all y_2, y_2 is excited or y_2 will drive a car via universal resolution. From the fact that for all y_2, if y_2 were excited, then y_2 is not a cashier, and that for all y_2, y_2 is a cashier we can infer that for all y_2, y_2 is not excited via universal modus tollens. Finally, from the fact that for all y_2, y_2 is excited or y_2 will drive a car, and that for all y_2, y_2 is not excited we can infer that for all y_2, y_2 will drive a car via universal disjunctive syllogism, which contradicts that There is at least one y_2 for which y_2 will not drive a car. Therefore, the answer is no.