Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a taxi driver or x_14 is a scientist. For all x_14, if x_14 were a taxi driver, then x_14 is poor. For all x_14, x_14 will make tea. For all x_14, x_14 is a lawyer. For all x_14, if x_14 were a scientist, then x_14 is poor. Can we infer the following from them? If we can, name the inference rule being used: There is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is poor and x_14 is a lawyer.
 From the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 were a taxi driver, then x_14 is poor, that for all x_14, if x_14 were a scientist, then x_14 is poor, and that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is a taxi driver or x_14 is a scientist we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is poor via existential disjunction elimination. From the fact that for all x_14, x_14 is a lawyer, and that for all x_14, x_14 will make tea we can infer that for all x_14, x_14 is a lawyer and x_14 will make tea via universal conjunction. From the fact that for all x_14, x_14 is a lawyer and x_14 will make tea we can infer that for all x_14, x_14 is a lawyer via universal simplification. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is poor, and that for all x_14, x_14 is a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is poor and x_14 is a lawyer via existential conjunction. Therefore, the answer is yes.