Consider the following premises. For all x_14, if x_14 plays a game, then x_14 is not a bartender. There is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a lawyer. For all x_14, x_14 will play tennis. For all x_14, if x_14 were a lawyer, then x_14 is not playing tennis. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_14, x_14 will play a game.
 From the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 were a lawyer, then x_14 is not playing tennis, and that for all x_14, x_14 will play tennis we can infer that for all x_14, x_14 is not a lawyer via universal modus tollens. From the fact that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a lawyer or x_14 is a bartender via existential addition. From the fact that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a lawyer or x_14 is a bartender, and that for all x_14, x_14 is not a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a bartender via existential disjunctive syllogism. Finally, from the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 plays a game, then x_14 is not a bartender, and that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a bartender we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 will not play a game via existential modus tollens, which contradicts that For all x_14, x_14 will play a game. Therefore, the answer is no.