Consider the following premises. For all x_15, if x_15 climbs a mountain, then x_15 is not driving a car. For all x_15, if x_15 were a sailor, then x_15 is driving a car. For all x_15, if x_15 goes running, then x_15 is climbing a mountain. For all x_15, x_15 is an astronaut and x_15 is poor. For all x_15, if x_15 were an astronaut, then x_15 is a sailor. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: There is at least one x_15 for which x_15 will go running.
 From the fact that for all x_15, x_15 is an astronaut and x_15 is poor we can infer that for all x_15, x_15 is an astronaut via universal simplification. From the fact that for all x_15, if x_15 were an astronaut, then x_15 is a sailor, and that for all x_15, if x_15 were a sailor, then x_15 is driving a car we can infer that for all x_15, if x_15 were an astronaut, then x_15 is driving a car via universal transitivity. From the fact that for all x_15, if x_15 were an astronaut, then x_15 is driving a car, and that for all x_15, x_15 is an astronaut we can infer that for all x_15, x_15 will drive a car via universal modus ponens. From the fact that for all x_15, if x_15 climbs a mountain, then x_15 is not driving a car, and that for all x_15, x_15 will drive a car we can infer that for all x_15, x_15 will not climb a mountain via universal modus tollens. Finally, from the fact that for all x_15, if x_15 goes running, then x_15 is climbing a mountain, and that for all x_15, x_15 will not climb a mountain we can infer that for all x_15, x_15 will not go running via universal modus tollens, which contradicts that There is at least one x_15 for which x_15 will go running. Therefore, the answer is no.