Consider the following premises. For all x_17, x_17 is a lawyer or x_17 is a server. For all x_17, x_17 is not a server or x_17 is fast. For all x_17, if x_17 were fast, then x_17 is running. There is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not a lawyer or x_17 will read a book. For all x_17, x_17 will go running or x_17 will not read a book. For all x_17, if x_17 goes running, then x_17 is a taxi driver. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_17, x_17 is not a taxi driver.
 From the fact that for all x_17, x_17 will go running or x_17 will not read a book we can infer that for all x_17, if x_17 reads a book, then x_17 is running via universal rewriting. From the fact that for all x_17, x_17 is a lawyer or x_17 is a server, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not a lawyer or x_17 will read a book we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a server or x_17 will read a book via existential resolution. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a server or x_17 will read a book, and that for all x_17, x_17 is not a server or x_17 is fast we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will read a book or x_17 is fast via existential resolution. From the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 reads a book, then x_17 is running, that for all x_17, if x_17 were fast, then x_17 is running, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will read a book or x_17 is fast we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will go running via existential disjunction elimination. Finally, from the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 goes running, then x_17 is a taxi driver, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will go running we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a taxi driver via existential modus ponens, which contradicts that For all x_17, x_17 is not a taxi driver. Therefore, the answer is no.