Consider the following premises. For all x_17, x_17 will play tennis. For all x_17, if x_17 were a musician, then x_17 is a soldier. For all x_17, if x_17 were a janitor, then x_17 is cooking. For all x_17, if x_17 were a soldier, then x_17 is cooking. There is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 cooks, then x_17 is a musician. For all x_17, if x_17 were a soldier, then x_17 is not playing tennis. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_17, x_17 is a janitor.
 From the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 were a soldier, then x_17 is not playing tennis, and that for all x_17, x_17 will play tennis we can infer that for all x_17, x_17 is not a soldier. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 cooks, then x_17 is a musician, and that for all x_17, if x_17 were a musician, then x_17 is a soldier we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 cooks, then x_17 is a soldier. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 cooks, then x_17 is a soldier, and that for all x_17, if x_17 were a soldier, then x_17 is cooking we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will cook if and only if x_17 is a soldier. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will cook if and only if x_17 is a soldier, and that for all x_17, x_17 is not a soldier we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will not cook. Finally, from the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 were a janitor, then x_17 is cooking, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will not cook we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not a janitor, which contradicts that For all x_17, x_17 is a janitor. Therefore, the answer is no.