Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_1 for which x_1 is a server or x_1 is rich. For all x_1, if x_1 were rich, then x_1 is playing tennis. For all x_1, if x_1 were a server, then x_1 is curious. For all x_1, if x_1 plays tennis, then x_1 is curious. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_1, x_1 is not curious.
 From the fact that for all x_1, if x_1 were rich, then x_1 is playing tennis, and that for all x_1, if x_1 plays tennis, then x_1 is curious we can infer that for all x_1, if x_1 were rich, then x_1 is curious via universal transitivity. Finally, from the fact that for all x_1, if x_1 were a server, then x_1 is curious, that for all x_1, if x_1 were rich, then x_1 is curious, and that there is at least one x_1 for which x_1 is a server or x_1 is rich we can infer that there is at least one x_1 for which x_1 is curious via existential disjunction elimination, which contradicts that For all x_1, x_1 is not curious. Therefore, the answer is no.