Consider the following premises. For all x_10, if x_10 were a lawyer, then x_10 is curious. For all x_10, if x_10 works, then x_10 is a lawyer. There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will work. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_10, neither x_10 is curious nor x_10 is rich.
 From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 works, then x_10 is a lawyer, and that for all x_10, if x_10 were a lawyer, then x_10 is curious we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 works, then x_10 is curious. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 works, then x_10 is curious, and that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will work we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is curious. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is curious we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is curious or x_10 is rich, which contradicts that For all x_10, neither x_10 is curious nor x_10 is rich. Therefore, the answer is no.