Consider the following premises. forall x_14: P_4(x_14) or P_9(x_14). forall x_14: P_9(x_14) -> Q_14(x_14). forall x_14: P_14(x_14) or ~Q_14(x_14). forall x_14: P_14(x_14) -> P(x_14). forall x_14: P_4(x_14) -> P(x_14). Can we infer exists x_14: ~(P(x_14) or U(x_14)) from them?
 From forall x_14: P_14(x_14) or ~Q_14(x_14) we can infer forall x_14: Q_14(x_14) -> P_14(x_14). From forall x_14: P_9(x_14) -> Q_14(x_14), forall x_14: Q_14(x_14) -> P_14(x_14) we can infer forall x_14: P_9(x_14) -> P_14(x_14). From forall x_14: P_9(x_14) -> P_14(x_14), forall x_14: P_14(x_14) -> P(x_14) we can infer forall x_14: P_9(x_14) -> P(x_14). From forall x_14: P_4(x_14) -> P(x_14), forall x_14: P_9(x_14) -> P(x_14), forall x_14: P_4(x_14) or P_9(x_14) we can infer forall x_14: P(x_14). Finally, from forall x_14: P(x_14) we can infer forall x_14: P(x_14) or U(x_14), which contradicts exists x_14: ~(P(x_14) or U(x_14)). Therefore, the answer is no.