Consider the following premises. For all x_6, x_6 will go running if and only if x_6 will play tennis. For all x_6, x_6 will not go running. For all x_6, if x_6 plays tennis, then x_6 is working. For all x_6, if x_6 drives a car, then x_6 is playing tennis. For all x_6, if x_6 works, then x_6 is driving a car. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_6 for which x_6 will drive a car.
 From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 plays tennis, then x_6 is working, and that for all x_6, if x_6 works, then x_6 is driving a car we can infer that for all x_6, if x_6 plays tennis, then x_6 is driving a car. From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 plays tennis, then x_6 is driving a car, and that for all x_6, if x_6 drives a car, then x_6 is playing tennis we can infer that for all x_6, x_6 will play tennis if and only if x_6 will drive a car. From the fact that for all x_6, x_6 will go running if and only if x_6 will play tennis, and that for all x_6, x_6 will not go running we can infer that for all x_6, x_6 will not play tennis. Finally, from the fact that for all x_6, x_6 will play tennis if and only if x_6 will drive a car, and that for all x_6, x_6 will not play tennis we can infer that for all x_6, x_6 will not drive a car, which contradicts that There is at least one x_6 for which x_6 will drive a car. Therefore, the answer is no.