Consider the following premises. For all x_5, x_5 will drive a car or x_5 is a server. For all x_5, if x_5 plays squash, then x_5 is curious. For all x_5, if x_5 drives a car, then x_5 is curious. For all x_5, if x_5 were a server, then x_5 is playing squash. There is at least one x_5 for which if x_5 were curious, then x_5 is a politician. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_5, x_5 is not a politician.
 From the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 were a server, then x_5 is playing squash, and that for all x_5, if x_5 plays squash, then x_5 is curious we can infer that for all x_5, if x_5 were a server, then x_5 is curious via universal transitivity. From the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 drives a car, then x_5 is curious, that for all x_5, if x_5 were a server, then x_5 is curious, and that for all x_5, x_5 will drive a car or x_5 is a server we can infer that for all x_5, x_5 is curious via universal disjunction elimination. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_5 for which if x_5 were curious, then x_5 is a politician, and that for all x_5, x_5 is curious we can infer that there is at least one x_5 for which x_5 is a politician via existential modus ponens, which contradicts that For all x_5, x_5 is not a politician. Therefore, the answer is no.