Logic is Raping Me in Uncomfortable Places

Symbolizing Relational Predicate Logic:

Section 17

f) Doctors who respect all of their patients will be liked and respected by them all
(x)(__ ⊃ __)

x is a doctor who respects all of his/her patients:

Dx • (y)(Pyx ⊃ Rxy)

x will be liked and respected by all of his/her patients:

(y)(Pyx ⊃ (Ryx • Lyx))

(x)((Dx • (y)(Pyx ⊃ Rxy)) ⊃ (y)(Pyx ⊃ (Ryx • Lyx)))

(w)(Pwx ⊃ (Rwx • Lwx))

I know... what the fuck, right? Welcome to my life. And don't even get me started on the proofs. Sweet monkey crapfuck they confuse me:

Here's a sample proof from the review section:

(x)((Qx ν Wx) ⊃ (Ex • Rx)

(x)((Ex ν Rx) ⊃ (Qx • Wx)

/∴ (x)(Qx ≡ Rx)

shouldn't be too hard: if you use biconditional exchange then the conclusion should easily translate into:

(Qx ⊃ Rx) • (Rx ⊃ Qx)

and that's all well and good... but how the fuck do I get there from the two premises? That's what I want to know...

Meh, well... I'll ask Will for a hand when he gets off work - he's got one hell of a logical mind ( he's a future lawyer, so naturally his brain is well-suited for logic. He took a practice LSAT without studying anything last semester and got a 167 out of 180 on it).

And I still have tomorrow's class period and all of tomorrow afternoon to take care of it... hopefully it'll make a bit more sense.

Wish me luck blogosphere! If I don't pass this class I will be severely ticked off at the universe... I'm so close to being done with math!