Consider the following premises. For all y_2, y_2 will not drive a car. For all y_2, if y_2 were a sailor, then y_2 is curious. For all y_2, y_2 is a sailor. There is at least one y_2 for which y_2 will drive a car or y_2 is a lawyer. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all y_2, either y_2 is curious or y_2 is a lawyer are not true.
 From the fact that there is at least one y_2 for which y_2 will drive a car or y_2 is a lawyer, and that for all y_2, y_2 will not drive a car we can infer that there is at least one y_2 for which y_2 is a lawyer via existential disjunctive syllogism. From the fact that for all y_2, if y_2 were a sailor, then y_2 is curious, and that for all y_2, y_2 is a sailor we can infer that for all y_2, y_2 is curious via universal modus ponens. Finally, from the fact that for all y_2, y_2 is curious, and that there is at least one y_2 for which y_2 is a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one y_2 for which y_2 is curious and y_2 is a lawyer via existential conjunction, which contradicts that For all y_2, either y_2 is curious or y_2 is a lawyer are not true. Therefore, the answer is no.