Consider the following premises. For all x_2, if x_2 were a lawyer, then x_2 is making tea. There is at least one x_2 for which if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is climbing a mountain. For all x_2, if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is a lawyer. For all x_2, x_2 will not climb a mountain. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_2, x_2 is a lawyer.
 From the fact that there is at least one x_2 for which if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is climbing a mountain, and that for all x_2, x_2 will not climb a mountain we can infer that there is at least one x_2 for which x_2 will not make tea. From the fact that for all x_2, if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is a lawyer, and that for all x_2, if x_2 were a lawyer, then x_2 is making tea we can infer that for all x_2, x_2 will make tea if and only if x_2 is a lawyer. Finally, from the fact that for all x_2, x_2 will make tea if and only if x_2 is a lawyer, and that there is at least one x_2 for which x_2 will not make tea we can infer that there is at least one x_2 for which x_2 is not a lawyer, which contradicts that For all x_2, x_2 is a lawyer. Therefore, the answer is no.