Consider the following premises. For all x_10, if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is working. There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not play squash. For all x_10, if x_10 works, then x_10 is playing squash. For all x_10, if x_10 makes tea, then x_10 is working. For all x_10, if x_10 were an artist, then x_10 is making tea. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_10, x_10 is an artist.
 From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were an artist, then x_10 is making tea, and that for all x_10, if x_10 makes tea, then x_10 is working we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 were an artist, then x_10 is working. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 works, then x_10 is playing squash, and that for all x_10, if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is working we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will work if and only if x_10 will play squash. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 will work if and only if x_10 will play squash, and that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not play squash we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not work. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were an artist, then x_10 is working, and that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will not work we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is not an artist, which contradicts that For all x_10, x_10 is an artist. Therefore, the answer is no.