Consider the following premises. For all x_13, x_13 is an office clerk or x_13 is a bartender. If it rains, then Jennifer is not driving a car. For all x_13, if x_13 were a bartender, then x_13 is driving a car. For all x_13, if x_13 were an office clerk, then x_13 is driving a car. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: It is not raining.
 From the fact that for all x_13, if x_13 were an office clerk, then x_13 is driving a car, that for all x_13, if x_13 were a bartender, then x_13 is driving a car, and that for all x_13, x_13 is an office clerk or x_13 is a bartender we can infer that for all x_13, x_13 will drive a car via universal disjunction elimination. From the fact that for all x_13, x_13 will drive a car we can infer that Jennifer is driving a car via universal instantiation. Finally, from the fact that if it rains, then Jennifer is not driving a car, and that Jennifer is driving a car we can infer that it is not raining via modus tollens. Therefore, the answer is yes.