Consider the following premises. For all x_10, x_10 is sad if and only if x_10 will play squash. For all x_10, x_10 is sad if and only if x_10 is bored. There is at least one x_10 for which if x_10 were a carpenter, then x_10 is playing squash. For all x_10, x_10 is not bored. For all x_10, if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is a carpenter. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_10, x_10 is a carpenter.
 From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is sad if and only if x_10 is bored, and that for all x_10, x_10 is not bored we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is not sad. From the fact that there is at least one x_10 for which if x_10 were a carpenter, then x_10 is playing squash, and that for all x_10, if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is a carpenter we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is a carpenter if and only if x_10 will play squash. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is sad if and only if x_10 will play squash, and that for all x_10, x_10 is not sad we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will not play squash. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is a carpenter if and only if x_10 will play squash, and that for all x_10, x_10 will not play squash we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is not a carpenter, which contradicts that For all x_10, x_10 is a carpenter. Therefore, the answer is no.