Consider the following premises. For all x_5, x_5 is not a server. For all x_5, if x_5 were a bartender, then x_5 is a server. For all x_5, if x_5 were a police officer, then x_5 is not climbing a mountain. For all x_5, x_5 is a bartender or x_5 will climb a mountain. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: There is at least one x_5 for which x_5 is a police officer.
 From the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 were a bartender, then x_5 is a server, and that for all x_5, x_5 is not a server we can infer that for all x_5, x_5 is not a bartender via universal modus tollens. From the fact that for all x_5, x_5 is a bartender or x_5 will climb a mountain, and that for all x_5, x_5 is not a bartender we can infer that for all x_5, x_5 will climb a mountain via universal disjunctive syllogism. Finally, from the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 were a police officer, then x_5 is not climbing a mountain, and that for all x_5, x_5 will climb a mountain we can infer that for all x_5, x_5 is not a police officer via universal modus tollens, which contradicts that There is at least one x_5 for which x_5 is a police officer. Therefore, the answer is no.