Consider the following premises. For all x_5, if x_5 writes a letter, then x_5 is a carpenter. For all x_5, if x_5 were a writer, then x_5 is a taxi driver. For all x_5, if x_5 drinks water, then x_5 is writing a letter. For all x_5, if x_5 were a taxi driver, then x_5 is drinking water. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_5 for which the fact that x_5 were a writer does not imply that x_5 is a carpenter.
 From the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 drinks water, then x_5 is writing a letter, and that for all x_5, if x_5 writes a letter, then x_5 is a carpenter we can infer that for all x_5, if x_5 drinks water, then x_5 is a carpenter. From the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 were a writer, then x_5 is a taxi driver, and that for all x_5, if x_5 were a taxi driver, then x_5 is drinking water we can infer that for all x_5, if x_5 were a writer, then x_5 is drinking water. Finally, from the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 were a writer, then x_5 is drinking water, and that for all x_5, if x_5 drinks water, then x_5 is a carpenter we can infer that for all x_5, if x_5 were a writer, then x_5 is a carpenter, which contradicts that There is at least one x_5 for which the fact that x_5 were a writer does not imply that x_5 is a carpenter. Therefore, the answer is no.