Consider the following premises. For all x_9, x_9 is a lawyer. For all x_9, if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is working. For all x_9, if x_9 works, then x_9 is a lawyer. For all x_9, if x_9 plays tennis, then x_9 is not working. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_9 for which x_9 will play tennis.
 From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 works, then x_9 is a lawyer, and that for all x_9, if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is working we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 will work if and only if x_9 is a lawyer. From the fact that for all x_9, x_9 will work if and only if x_9 is a lawyer we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is working. From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is working, and that for all x_9, x_9 is a lawyer we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 will work. Finally, from the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 plays tennis, then x_9 is not working, and that for all x_9, x_9 will work we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 will not play tennis, which contradicts that There is at least one x_9 for which x_9 will play tennis. Therefore, the answer is no.