Consider the following premises. For all x_10, if x_10 works, then x_10 is playing tennis. For all x_10, if x_10 plays tennis, then x_10 is an astronaut. For all x_10, if x_10 were an astronaut, then x_10 is working. For all x_10, if x_10 were a bartender, then x_10 is not a scientist. For all x_10, x_10 is a bartender if and only if x_10 is an astronaut. For all x_10, x_10 is a scientist. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will play tennis.
 From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were an astronaut, then x_10 is working, and that for all x_10, if x_10 works, then x_10 is playing tennis we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 were an astronaut, then x_10 is playing tennis. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were a bartender, then x_10 is not a scientist, and that for all x_10, x_10 is a scientist we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is not a bartender. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were an astronaut, then x_10 is playing tennis, and that for all x_10, if x_10 plays tennis, then x_10 is an astronaut we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is an astronaut if and only if x_10 will play tennis. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is a bartender if and only if x_10 is an astronaut, and that for all x_10, x_10 is not a bartender we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is not an astronaut. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is an astronaut if and only if x_10 will play tennis, and that for all x_10, x_10 is not an astronaut we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will not play tennis, which contradicts that There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will play tennis. Therefore, the answer is no.