(p V q) & (¬p V r) → (q V r) is a tautology (i.e. always true)

Hello, captainjapan!
Once again, I apply my own names to defintions and axioms.
. .
Prove that: ..is a tautology.
. . . . .. . . . . . . . Given
. . . .. . . . . . . . ADI
. . . .. . . . . . . DeMorgan
. . . .. . . . . . . DeMorgan
. . .. . . . . Comm, Assoc.
. . Distributive
. . . . .. . . . . . . . axiom 1
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . axiom 2
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Comm, Assoc.
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . axiom 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .axiom 3