Consider the following premises. For all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain or x_10 will drive a car. For all x_10, if x_10 were bored, then x_10 is fast. For all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is bored. For all x_10, if x_10 plays tennis, then x_10 is fast. For all x_10, if x_10 drives a car, then x_10 is bored. For all x_10, x_10 is a police officer. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_10, x_10 is a police officer and x_10 is fast.
 From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is bored, that for all x_10, if x_10 drives a car, then x_10 is bored, and that for all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain or x_10 will drive a car we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is bored via universal disjunction elimination. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is bored we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is bored or x_10 will play tennis via universal addition. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were bored, then x_10 is fast, that for all x_10, if x_10 plays tennis, then x_10 is fast, and that for all x_10, x_10 is bored or x_10 will play tennis we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is fast via universal disjunction elimination. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is a police officer, and that for all x_10, x_10 is fast we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is a police officer and x_10 is fast via universal conjunction. Therefore, the answer is yes.