Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_3 for which if x_3 were rich, then x_3 is making tea. For all x_3, if x_3 drives a car, then x_3 is making tea. For all x_3, x_3 is rich. For all x_3, if x_3 takes a plane, then x_3 is driving a car. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_3, x_3 will not make tea.
 From the fact that for all x_3, if x_3 takes a plane, then x_3 is driving a car, and that for all x_3, if x_3 drives a car, then x_3 is making tea we can infer that for all x_3, if x_3 takes a plane, then x_3 is making tea via universal transitivity. From the fact that for all x_3, x_3 is rich we can infer that for all x_3, x_3 is rich or x_3 will take a plane via universal addition. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_3 for which if x_3 were rich, then x_3 is making tea, that for all x_3, if x_3 takes a plane, then x_3 is making tea, and that for all x_3, x_3 is rich or x_3 will take a plane we can infer that there is at least one x_3 for which x_3 will make tea via existential disjunction elimination, which contradicts that For all x_3, x_3 will not make tea. Therefore, the answer is no.