Consider the following premises. For all x_14, x_14 is fast. For all x_14, if x_14 were a bartender, then x_14 is not fast. There is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a bartender. For all x_14, if x_14 takes a plane, then x_14 is not climbing a mountain. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_14, x_14 will take a plane.
 From the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 were a bartender, then x_14 is not fast, and that for all x_14, x_14 is fast we can infer that for all x_14, x_14 is not a bartender via universal modus tollens. From the fact that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a bartender we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a bartender or x_14 will climb a mountain via existential addition. From the fact that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a bartender or x_14 will climb a mountain, and that for all x_14, x_14 is not a bartender we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 will climb a mountain via existential disjunctive syllogism. Finally, from the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 takes a plane, then x_14 is not climbing a mountain, and that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 will climb a mountain we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 will not take a plane via existential modus tollens, which contradicts that For all x_14, x_14 will take a plane. Therefore, the answer is no.