Consider the following premises. For all x_14, x_14 is a bartender if and only if x_14 is a scientist. For all x_14, if x_14 were curious, then x_14 is taking a plane. For all x_14, if x_14 climbs a mountain, then x_14 is a bartender. There is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is curious or x_14 will climb a mountain. For all x_14, if x_14 takes a plane, then x_14 is a bartender. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_14, x_14 is not a scientist.
 From the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 were curious, then x_14 is taking a plane, and that for all x_14, if x_14 takes a plane, then x_14 is a bartender we can infer that for all x_14, if x_14 were curious, then x_14 is a bartender via universal transitivity. From the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 were curious, then x_14 is a bartender, that for all x_14, if x_14 climbs a mountain, then x_14 is a bartender, and that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is curious or x_14 will climb a mountain we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a bartender via existential disjunction elimination. From the fact that for all x_14, x_14 is a bartender if and only if x_14 is a scientist we can infer that for all x_14, if x_14 were a bartender, then x_14 is a scientist via universal biconditional elimination. Finally, from the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 were a bartender, then x_14 is a scientist, and that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a bartender we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a scientist via existential modus ponens, which contradicts that For all x_14, x_14 is not a scientist. Therefore, the answer is no.