Consider the following premises. For all y_1, if y_1 were poor, then y_1 is a lawyer. For all y_1, y_1 is poor or y_1 is not a lawyer. James is not poor. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: James is a lawyer.
 From the fact that for all y_1, y_1 is poor or y_1 is not a lawyer we can infer that for all y_1, if y_1 were a lawyer, then y_1 is poor via universal rewriting. From the fact that for all y_1, if y_1 were a lawyer, then y_1 is poor, and that for all y_1, if y_1 were poor, then y_1 is a lawyer we can infer that for all y_1, y_1 is a lawyer if and only if y_1 is poor via universal biconditional introduction. From the fact that for all y_1, y_1 is a lawyer if and only if y_1 is poor we can infer that James is a lawyer if and only if James is poor via universal instantiation. Finally, from the fact that James is a lawyer if and only if James is poor, and that James is not poor we can infer that James is not a lawyer via biconditional elimination, which contradicts that James is a lawyer. Therefore, the answer is no.