Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_16 for which if x_16 drives a car, then x_16 is not working. For all x_16, x_16 is curious. For all x_16, if x_16 were a poet, then x_16 is driving a car. For all x_16, x_16 will work if and only if x_16 is curious. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_16, x_16 is a poet.
 From the fact that for all x_16, x_16 will work if and only if x_16 is curious we can infer that for all x_16, if x_16 were curious, then x_16 is working. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 were curious, then x_16 is working, and that for all x_16, x_16 is curious we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 will work. From the fact that there is at least one x_16 for which if x_16 drives a car, then x_16 is not working, and that for all x_16, x_16 will work we can infer that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 will not drive a car. Finally, from the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 were a poet, then x_16 is driving a car, and that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 will not drive a car we can infer that there is at least one x_16 for which x_16 is not a poet, which contradicts that For all x_16, x_16 is a poet. Therefore, the answer is no.