Consider the following premises. For all x, if x were excited, then x is poor. For all x, x is bored or x is not poor. For all x, if x were a lawyer, then x is excited. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: There is at least one x for which the fact that x were a lawyer does not imply that x is bored.
 From the fact that for all x, x is bored or x is not poor we can infer that for all x, if x were poor, then x is bored via universal rewriting. From the fact that for all x, if x were excited, then x is poor, and that for all x, if x were poor, then x is bored we can infer that for all x, if x were excited, then x is bored via universal transitivity. Finally, from the fact that for all x, if x were a lawyer, then x is excited, and that for all x, if x were excited, then x is bored we can infer that for all x, if x were a lawyer, then x is bored via universal transitivity, which contradicts that There is at least one x for which the fact that x were a lawyer does not imply that x is bored. Therefore, the answer is no.