Consider the following premises. For all x_7, if x_7 cooks, then x_7 is playing a game. For all x_7, if x_7 plays a game, then x_7 is a lawyer. For all x_7, x_7 will take a plane or x_7 will cook. There is at least one x_7 for which if x_7 takes a plane, then x_7 is playing a game. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_7, x_7 is not a lawyer.
 From the fact that there is at least one x_7 for which if x_7 takes a plane, then x_7 is playing a game, that for all x_7, if x_7 cooks, then x_7 is playing a game, and that for all x_7, x_7 will take a plane or x_7 will cook we can infer that there is at least one x_7 for which x_7 will play a game. Finally, from the fact that for all x_7, if x_7 plays a game, then x_7 is a lawyer, and that there is at least one x_7 for which x_7 will play a game we can infer that there is at least one x_7 for which x_7 is a lawyer, which contradicts that For all x_7, x_7 is not a lawyer. Therefore, the answer is no.