Consider the following premises. For all x_7, if x_7 cooks, then x_7 is climbing a mountain. For all x_7, x_7 is a carpenter if and only if x_7 will climb a mountain. There is at least one x_7 for which x_7 will cook or x_7 is curious. For all x_7, x_7 is not a carpenter. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_7, x_7 is not curious.
 From the fact that for all x_7, x_7 is a carpenter if and only if x_7 will climb a mountain, and that for all x_7, x_7 is not a carpenter we can infer that for all x_7, x_7 will not climb a mountain. From the fact that for all x_7, if x_7 cooks, then x_7 is climbing a mountain, and that for all x_7, x_7 will not climb a mountain we can infer that for all x_7, x_7 will not cook. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_7 for which x_7 will cook or x_7 is curious, and that for all x_7, x_7 will not cook we can infer that there is at least one x_7 for which x_7 is curious, which contradicts that For all x_7, x_7 is not curious. Therefore, the answer is no.