Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is not sad. For all x_9, if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is playing squash. For all x_9, if x_9 plays squash, then x_9 is a lawyer. For all x_9, x_9 is sad. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_9, x_9 will play squash.
 From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is playing squash, and that for all x_9, if x_9 plays squash, then x_9 is a lawyer we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 is a lawyer if and only if x_9 will play squash. From the fact that there is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is not sad, and that for all x_9, x_9 is sad we can infer that there is at least one x_9 for which x_9 is not a lawyer. Finally, from the fact that for all x_9, x_9 is a lawyer if and only if x_9 will play squash, and that there is at least one x_9 for which x_9 is not a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one x_9 for which x_9 will not play squash, which contradicts that For all x_9, x_9 will play squash. Therefore, the answer is no.