Consider the following premises. For all x_16, if x_16 were rich, then x_16 is an electrician. For all x_16, if x_16 plays a game, then x_16 is driving a car. For all x_16, if x_16 were an office clerk, then x_16 is playing a game. For all x_16, x_16 is a cashier or x_16 is rich. For all x_16, if x_16 were a cashier, then x_16 is an electrician. For all x_16, x_16 is a sailor. For all x_16, if x_16 were an electrician, then x_16 is an office clerk. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_16, x_16 is a sailor and x_16 will drive a car.
 From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 were a cashier, then x_16 is an electrician, that for all x_16, if x_16 were rich, then x_16 is an electrician, and that for all x_16, x_16 is a cashier or x_16 is rich we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is an electrician via universal disjunction elimination. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 were an electrician, then x_16 is an office clerk, and that for all x_16, x_16 is an electrician we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is an office clerk via universal modus ponens. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 were an office clerk, then x_16 is playing a game, and that for all x_16, x_16 is an office clerk we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 will play a game via universal modus ponens. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 plays a game, then x_16 is driving a car, and that for all x_16, x_16 will play a game we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 will drive a car via universal modus ponens. Finally, from the fact that for all x_16, x_16 is a sailor, and that for all x_16, x_16 will drive a car we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is a sailor and x_16 will drive a car via universal conjunction. Therefore, the answer is yes.