Consider the following premises. For all x_15, if x_15 drinks water, then x_15 is not excited. For all x_15, if x_15 were a musician, then x_15 is excited. There is at least one x_15 for which if x_15 were a police officer, then x_15 is excited. For all x_15, x_15 is a police officer or x_15 is a musician. For all x_15, if x_15 were poor, then x_15 is drinking water. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_15, x_15 is poor.
 From the fact that there is at least one x_15 for which if x_15 were a police officer, then x_15 is excited, that for all x_15, if x_15 were a musician, then x_15 is excited, and that for all x_15, x_15 is a police officer or x_15 is a musician we can infer that there is at least one x_15 for which x_15 is excited via existential disjunction elimination. From the fact that for all x_15, if x_15 drinks water, then x_15 is not excited, and that there is at least one x_15 for which x_15 is excited we can infer that there is at least one x_15 for which x_15 will not drink water via existential modus tollens. Finally, from the fact that for all x_15, if x_15 were poor, then x_15 is drinking water, and that there is at least one x_15 for which x_15 will not drink water we can infer that there is at least one x_15 for which x_15 is not poor via existential modus tollens, which contradicts that For all x_15, x_15 is poor. Therefore, the answer is no.