Fitch - Formally prove that these two premises lead to ∃x(Small(x)) using ∃ Elimination

Question

1. ∃x(¬Large(x))
2. ∀x(Large(x)∨Small(x))

So far I have this:

How do I get to the goal of ∃x(Small(x))?

Am I missing something small or am I doing it completely incorrect?

Answer 1

I was messing around with the below Fitch proof when I realized what is required

So my initial Fitch proof looks like this

Thank you All for Your guidance!