Consider the following premises. For all x_17, if x_17 were curious, then x_17 is not sleeping. For all x_17, x_17 will go running if and only if x_17 will sleep. There is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will sleep if and only if x_17 will work. For all x_17, x_17 will work or x_17 will go running. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_17, x_17 is curious.
 From the fact that for all x_17, x_17 will go running if and only if x_17 will sleep we can infer that for all x_17, if x_17 goes running, then x_17 is sleeping via universal biconditional elimination. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will sleep if and only if x_17 will work we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 works, then x_17 is sleeping via existential biconditional elimination. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 works, then x_17 is sleeping, that for all x_17, if x_17 goes running, then x_17 is sleeping, and that for all x_17, x_17 will work or x_17 will go running we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will sleep via existential disjunction elimination. Finally, from the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 were curious, then x_17 is not sleeping, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will sleep we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not curious via existential modus tollens, which contradicts that For all x_17, x_17 is curious. Therefore, the answer is no.