Consider the following premises. For all x, x will drive a car. For all x_10, if x_10 drives a car, then x_10 is climbing a mountain. For all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is driving a car. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: James is not climbing a mountain.
 From the fact that for all x, x will drive a car we can infer that James is driving a car via universal instantiation. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 drives a car, then x_10 is climbing a mountain, and that for all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is driving a car we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will drive a car if and only if x_10 will climb a mountain via universal biconditional introduction. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 will drive a car if and only if x_10 will climb a mountain we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 drives a car, then x_10 is climbing a mountain via universal biconditional elimination. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 drives a car, then x_10 is climbing a mountain we can infer that if James drives a car, then James is climbing a mountain via universal instantiation. Finally, from the fact that if James drives a car, then James is climbing a mountain, and that James is driving a car we can infer that James is climbing a mountain via modus ponens, which contradicts that James is not climbing a mountain. Therefore, the answer is no.