Consider the following premises. For all x_12, if x_12 takes a plane, then x_12 is bored. There is at least one x_12 for which if x_12 drives a car, then x_12 is taking a plane. For all x_12, if x_12 climbs a mountain, then x_12 is driving a car. For all x_12, x_12 will climb a mountain and x_12 is poor. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_12, x_12 is not bored.
 From the fact that for all x_12, x_12 will climb a mountain and x_12 is poor we can infer that for all x_12, x_12 will climb a mountain via universal simplification. From the fact that there is at least one x_12 for which if x_12 drives a car, then x_12 is taking a plane, and that for all x_12, if x_12 takes a plane, then x_12 is bored we can infer that there is at least one x_12 for which if x_12 drives a car, then x_12 is bored via existential transitivity. From the fact that for all x_12, if x_12 climbs a mountain, then x_12 is driving a car, and that for all x_12, x_12 will climb a mountain we can infer that for all x_12, x_12 will drive a car via universal modus ponens. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_12 for which if x_12 drives a car, then x_12 is bored, and that for all x_12, x_12 will drive a car we can infer that there is at least one x_12 for which x_12 is bored via existential modus ponens, which contradicts that For all x_12, x_12 is not bored. Therefore, the answer is no.