Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_31 for which x_31 is not a taxi driver. For all x_31, if x_31 plays squash, then x_31 is not cooking. For all x_31, x_31 will read a book if and only if x_31 is a mechanic. For all x_31, x_31 is a writer or x_31 will cook. For all x_31, x_31 is a taxi driver if and only if x_31 is a writer. For all x_31, if x_31 were a mechanic, then x_31 is playing squash. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_31, x_31 will read a book.
 From the fact that for all x_31, x_31 is a taxi driver if and only if x_31 is a writer, and that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 is not a taxi driver we can infer that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 is not a writer. From the fact that for all x_31, x_31 is a writer or x_31 will cook, and that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 is not a writer we can infer that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 will cook. From the fact that for all x_31, if x_31 plays squash, then x_31 is not cooking, and that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 will cook we can infer that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 will not play squash. From the fact that for all x_31, if x_31 were a mechanic, then x_31 is playing squash, and that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 will not play squash we can infer that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 is not a mechanic. Finally, from the fact that for all x_31, x_31 will read a book if and only if x_31 is a mechanic, and that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 is not a mechanic we can infer that there is at least one x_31 for which x_31 will not read a book, which contradicts that For all x_31, x_31 will read a book. Therefore, the answer is no.