Consider the following premises. For all x_17, if x_17 goes running, then x_17 is not a lawyer. For all x_17, x_17 is an astronaut or x_17 is a mechanic. There is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a lawyer if and only if x_17 is an astronaut. For all x_17, x_17 is a mechanic if and only if x_17 is a lawyer. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_17, x_17 will go running.
 From the fact that for all x_17, x_17 is a mechanic if and only if x_17 is a lawyer we can infer that for all x_17, if x_17 were a mechanic, then x_17 is a lawyer. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a lawyer if and only if x_17 is an astronaut we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were an astronaut, then x_17 is a lawyer. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were an astronaut, then x_17 is a lawyer, that for all x_17, if x_17 were a mechanic, then x_17 is a lawyer, and that for all x_17, x_17 is an astronaut or x_17 is a mechanic we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a lawyer. Finally, from the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 goes running, then x_17 is not a lawyer, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will not go running, which contradicts that For all x_17, x_17 will go running. Therefore, the answer is no.