Consider the following premises. For all z, if z were a lawyer, then z is playing squash. For all z, if z plays squash, then z is a lawyer. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one z for which the fact that z plays squash does not imply that z is a lawyer.
 From the fact that for all z, if z were a lawyer, then z is playing squash, and that for all z, if z plays squash, then z is a lawyer we can infer that for all z, z is a lawyer if and only if z will play squash. Finally, from the fact that for all z, z is a lawyer if and only if z will play squash we can infer that for all z, if z plays squash, then z is a lawyer, which contradicts that There is at least one z for which the fact that z plays squash does not imply that z is a lawyer. Therefore, the answer is no.