Consider the following premises. For all x_6, x_6 is not an electrician. For all x_6, if x_6 goes running, then x_6 is sad. There is at least one x_6 for which if x_6 were a lawyer, then x_6 is running. For all x_6, if x_6 were sad, then x_6 is an electrician. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_6, x_6 is a lawyer.
 From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 goes running, then x_6 is sad, and that for all x_6, if x_6 were sad, then x_6 is an electrician we can infer that for all x_6, if x_6 goes running, then x_6 is an electrician. From the fact that there is at least one x_6 for which if x_6 were a lawyer, then x_6 is running, and that for all x_6, if x_6 goes running, then x_6 is an electrician we can infer that there is at least one x_6 for which if x_6 were a lawyer, then x_6 is an electrician. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_6 for which if x_6 were a lawyer, then x_6 is an electrician, and that for all x_6, x_6 is not an electrician we can infer that there is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is not a lawyer, which contradicts that For all x_6, x_6 is a lawyer. Therefore, the answer is no.