Consider the following premises. For all x_17, x_17 is a lawyer if and only if x_17 is a cashier. For all x_17, if x_17 were a soldier, then x_17 is a cashier. For all x_17, if x_17 drives a car, then x_17 is a soldier. There is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will drive a car. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a lawyer.
 From the fact that for all x_17, x_17 is a lawyer if and only if x_17 is a cashier we can infer that for all x_17, if x_17 were a cashier, then x_17 is a lawyer. From the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 were a soldier, then x_17 is a cashier, and that for all x_17, if x_17 were a cashier, then x_17 is a lawyer we can infer that for all x_17, if x_17 were a soldier, then x_17 is a lawyer. From the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 drives a car, then x_17 is a soldier, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will drive a car we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a soldier. Finally, from the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 were a soldier, then x_17 is a lawyer, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a soldier we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a lawyer. Therefore, the answer is yes.