Consider the following premises. For all x_2, if x_2 were a musician, then x_2 is poor. For all x_2, if x_2 were poor, then x_2 is an office clerk. For all x_2, if x_2 were an office clerk, then x_2 is a musician. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_2 for which the fact that x_2 were a musician does not imply that x_2 is poor.
 From the fact that for all x_2, if x_2 were poor, then x_2 is an office clerk, and that for all x_2, if x_2 were an office clerk, then x_2 is a musician we can infer that for all x_2, if x_2 were poor, then x_2 is a musician. From the fact that for all x_2, if x_2 were poor, then x_2 is a musician, and that for all x_2, if x_2 were a musician, then x_2 is poor we can infer that for all x_2, x_2 is poor if and only if x_2 is a musician. Finally, from the fact that for all x_2, x_2 is poor if and only if x_2 is a musician we can infer that for all x_2, if x_2 were a musician, then x_2 is poor, which contradicts that There is at least one x_2 for which the fact that x_2 were a musician does not imply that x_2 is poor. Therefore, the answer is no.