Consider the following premises. For all x_9, x_9 will take a plane or x_9 will not play squash. For all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is making tea. For all x_9, if x_9 makes tea, then x_9 is playing squash. For all x_9, if x_9 takes a plane, then x_9 is reading a book. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_9 for which the fact that x_9 were rich does not imply that x_9 is reading a book.
 From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is making tea, and that for all x_9, if x_9 makes tea, then x_9 is playing squash we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is playing squash. From the fact that for all x_9, x_9 will take a plane or x_9 will not play squash we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 plays squash, then x_9 is taking a plane. From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is playing squash, and that for all x_9, if x_9 plays squash, then x_9 is taking a plane we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is taking a plane. Finally, from the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is taking a plane, and that for all x_9, if x_9 takes a plane, then x_9 is reading a book we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is reading a book, which contradicts that There is at least one x_9 for which the fact that x_9 were rich does not imply that x_9 is reading a book. Therefore, the answer is no.