Consider the following premises. forall x_16: U_3(x_16) -> W(x_16). forall x_16: T_3(x_16) <-> Q_16(x_16). forall x_16: W(x_16) -> Q_16(x_16). forall x_16: ~Q_9(x_16). forall x_16: T_3(x_16) -> Q_9(x_16). Can we infer exists x_16: U_3(x_16) from them?
 From forall x_16: T_3(x_16) <-> Q_16(x_16) we can infer forall x_16: Q_16(x_16) -> T_3(x_16). From forall x_16: T_3(x_16) -> Q_9(x_16), forall x_16: ~Q_9(x_16) we can infer forall x_16: ~T_3(x_16). From forall x_16: W(x_16) -> Q_16(x_16), forall x_16: Q_16(x_16) -> T_3(x_16) we can infer forall x_16: W(x_16) -> T_3(x_16). From forall x_16: W(x_16) -> T_3(x_16), forall x_16: ~T_3(x_16) we can infer forall x_16: ~W(x_16). Finally, from forall x_16: U_3(x_16) -> W(x_16), forall x_16: ~W(x_16) we can infer forall x_16: ~U_3(x_16), which contradicts exists x_16: U_3(x_16). Therefore, the answer is no.