Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_11 for which x_11 will not drive a car or x_11 is a server. For all x_11, x_11 will play squash and x_11 is a lawyer. For all x_11, x_11 will drive a car or x_11 is a janitor. For all x_11, if x_11 were a janitor, then x_11 is not playing squash. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: For all x_11, x_11 is not a server.
 From the fact that for all x_11, x_11 will drive a car or x_11 is a janitor, and that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 will not drive a car or x_11 is a server we can infer that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 is a janitor or x_11 is a server via existential resolution. From the fact that for all x_11, x_11 will play squash and x_11 is a lawyer we can infer that for all x_11, x_11 will play squash via universal simplification. From the fact that for all x_11, if x_11 were a janitor, then x_11 is not playing squash, and that for all x_11, x_11 will play squash we can infer that for all x_11, x_11 is not a janitor via universal modus tollens. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 is a janitor or x_11 is a server, and that for all x_11, x_11 is not a janitor we can infer that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 is a server via existential disjunctive syllogism, which contradicts that For all x_11, x_11 is not a server. Therefore, the answer is no.