Consider the following premises. For all x_10, x_10 is not a lawyer. For all x_10, if x_10 drives a car, then x_10 is curious. For all x_10, x_10 is a lawyer or x_10 is a carpenter. There is at least one x_10 for which if x_10 were curious, then x_10 is not a carpenter. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not drive a car.
 From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is a lawyer or x_10 is a carpenter, and that for all x_10, x_10 is not a lawyer we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is a carpenter. From the fact that there is at least one x_10 for which if x_10 were curious, then x_10 is not a carpenter, and that for all x_10, x_10 is a carpenter we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is not curious. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 drives a car, then x_10 is curious, and that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is not curious we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not drive a car. Therefore, the answer is yes.