Consider the following premises. forall x_3: T(x_3) -> T_1(x_3). forall x_3: W_1(x_3) <-> P_4(x_3). exists x_3: T(x_3). forall x_3: W_1(x_3) -> S(x_3). forall x_3: T_1(x_3) -> P_4(x_3). Can we infer forall x_3: ~S(x_3) from them?
 From forall x_3: W_1(x_3) <-> P_4(x_3) we can infer forall x_3: P_4(x_3) -> W_1(x_3). From forall x_3: T_1(x_3) -> P_4(x_3), forall x_3: P_4(x_3) -> W_1(x_3) we can infer forall x_3: T_1(x_3) -> W_1(x_3). From forall x_3: T(x_3) -> T_1(x_3), exists x_3: T(x_3) we can infer exists x_3: T_1(x_3). From forall x_3: T_1(x_3) -> W_1(x_3), forall x_3: W_1(x_3) -> S(x_3) we can infer forall x_3: T_1(x_3) -> S(x_3). Finally, from forall x_3: T_1(x_3) -> S(x_3), exists x_3: T_1(x_3) we can infer exists x_3: S(x_3), which contradicts forall x_3: ~S(x_3). Therefore, the answer is no.