Need some help with this question.
Prove that the following syllogism is valid by following the steps below.
My teapot is purple
My teapot holds water
--------------------
There exist purple things that hold water
a) Translate the syllogism into set-theoretic notation
x∈A
(x∈B)
-------
(A∩B≠∅) or (C∩B≠∅)??
b) Translate your set-theoretic notation into the notation of predicate logic
x∈A
x∈B
-----
∃y∈Ay∈B ??
c) Give a proof that the syllogism is valid, similar to that given in the lecture 5 videos.
S = A
p(y)=y∈B
p(x)∧(x∈S)⊨∃y∈Sp(y)
S≠∅ ↔ ∃x∈U x∈S
/** curious as to what this final question is actually looking for? **/
I would really appreciate any hints or feedback.

For (a), the conclusion should be $A \cap B \neq \varnothing $
For (b), I think you are expected to say:
$A(x)$
$B(x)$
--
$\exists y (A(y) \land B(y))$
For (c), (not sure what "lecture 5 videos" are, LOL) you have Conjunction introduction and Existential generalization. I think you are expected to write a proof tree of some sort. Maybe look in your textbook for examples, or follow the example here.