Consider the following premises. forall x_16: P_16(x_16). forall x_16: P_16(x_16) -> W(x_16). exists x_16: W(x_16) -> P_16(x_16). Can we infer forall x_16: ~(W(x_16) or T_2(x_16)) from them? If possible, name the inference rules being used at each step.
 From forall x_16: P_16(x_16) -> W(x_16), exists x_16: W(x_16) -> P_16(x_16) we can infer exists x_16: P_16(x_16) <-> W(x_16) via existential biconditional introduction. From exists x_16: P_16(x_16) <-> W(x_16) we can infer exists x_16: P_16(x_16) -> W(x_16) via existential biconditional elimination. From exists x_16: P_16(x_16) -> W(x_16), forall x_16: P_16(x_16) we can infer exists x_16: W(x_16) via existential modus ponens. Finally, from exists x_16: W(x_16) we can infer exists x_16: W(x_16) or T_2(x_16) via existential addition, which contradicts forall x_16: ~(W(x_16) or T_2(x_16)). Therefore, the answer is no.