I'm having a hard time proving that this is a valid argument
$Premise 1: (Ǝx)Kx→(\forall x)(Lx→Mx)$
$Premise 2: Kc • Lc$
I am getting confused with all the existential/universal instantiation rules.
First I did: $Kc\to\forall x(Lx\to Mx)$ by existential instantiation
then $Kc\to Lc\to Mc$ by universal instantiation
Is there anywhere where I'm supposed to infer modus ponens since I've already been given Kc and Lc in premise 2??