Consider the following premises. For all x_16, x_16 will play tennis if and only if x_16 is a sailor. For all x_16, if x_16 plays squash, then x_16 is a sailor. For all x_16, if x_16 were a writer, then x_16 is a sailor. There is at least one x_16 for which x_16 is a writer. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_16, x_16 will not play tennis.
 From the fact that for all x_16, x_16 will play tennis if and only if x_16 is a sailor we can infer that for all x_16, if x_16 were a sailor, then x_16 is playing tennis. From the fact that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 is a writer we can infer that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 is a writer or x_16 will play squash. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 were a writer, then x_16 is a sailor, that for all x_16, if x_16 plays squash, then x_16 is a sailor, and that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 is a writer or x_16 will play squash we can infer that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 is a sailor. Finally, from the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 were a sailor, then x_16 is playing tennis, and that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 is a sailor we can infer that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 will play tennis, which contradicts that For all x_16, x_16 will not play tennis. Therefore, the answer is no.