Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not climb a mountain. For all x_10, x_10 is a lawyer if and only if x_10 will read a book. For all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain if and only if x_10 is a lawyer. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_10, x_10 will read a book.
 From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain if and only if x_10 is a lawyer, and that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not climb a mountain we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is not a lawyer. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is a lawyer if and only if x_10 will read a book we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 reads a book, then x_10 is a lawyer. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 reads a book, then x_10 is a lawyer, and that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is not a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not read a book, which contradicts that For all x_10, x_10 will read a book. Therefore, the answer is no.