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