Consider the following premises. For all x_17, if x_17 were an office clerk, then x_17 is fast. For all x_17, x_17 will take a plane. For all x_17, if x_17 were an office clerk, then x_17 is not taking a plane. For all x_17, if x_17 were bored, then x_17 is an office clerk. For all x_17, if x_17 were a nurse, then x_17 is fast. There is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were fast, then x_17 is bored. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_17, x_17 is a nurse.
 From the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 were an office clerk, then x_17 is not taking a plane, and that for all x_17, x_17 will take a plane we can infer that for all x_17, x_17 is not an office clerk. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were fast, then x_17 is bored, and that for all x_17, if x_17 were bored, then x_17 is an office clerk we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were fast, then x_17 is an office clerk. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were fast, then x_17 is an office clerk, and that for all x_17, if x_17 were an office clerk, then x_17 is fast we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is fast if and only if x_17 is an office clerk. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is fast if and only if x_17 is an office clerk, and that for all x_17, x_17 is not an office clerk we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not fast. Finally, from the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 were a nurse, then x_17 is fast, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not fast we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not a nurse, which contradicts that For all x_17, x_17 is a nurse. Therefore, the answer is no.