Consider the following premises. For all x_14, x_14 will not cook or x_14 will play squash. There is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is an office clerk or x_14 is not a soldier. For all x_14, x_14 will cook or x_14 is a soldier. For all x_14, if x_14 plays squash, then x_14 is an office clerk. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: There is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is an office clerk or x_14 is a taxi driver.
 From the fact that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is an office clerk or x_14 is not a soldier we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which if x_14 were a soldier, then x_14 is an office clerk via existential rewriting. From the fact that for all x_14, x_14 will cook or x_14 is a soldier, and that for all x_14, x_14 will not cook or x_14 will play squash we can infer that for all x_14, x_14 is a soldier or x_14 will play squash via universal resolution. From the fact that there is at least one x_14 for which if x_14 were a soldier, then x_14 is an office clerk, that for all x_14, if x_14 plays squash, then x_14 is an office clerk, and that for all x_14, x_14 is a soldier or x_14 will play squash we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is an office clerk via existential disjunction elimination. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is an office clerk we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is an office clerk or x_14 is a taxi driver via existential addition. Therefore, the answer is yes.