Consider the following premises. For all x_2, if x_2 reads a book, then x_2 is making tea. For all x_2, x_2 will make tea if and only if x_2 will play tennis. For all x_2, if x_2 plays tennis, then x_2 is reading a book. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_2 for which the fact that x_2 makes tea does not imply that x_2 is reading a book.
 From the fact that for all x_2, x_2 will make tea if and only if x_2 will play tennis we can infer that for all x_2, if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is playing tennis. From the fact that for all x_2, if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is playing tennis, and that for all x_2, if x_2 plays tennis, then x_2 is reading a book we can infer that for all x_2, if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is reading a book. From the fact that for all x_2, if x_2 reads a book, then x_2 is making tea, and that for all x_2, if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is reading a book we can infer that for all x_2, x_2 will read a book if and only if x_2 will make tea. Finally, from the fact that for all x_2, x_2 will read a book if and only if x_2 will make tea we can infer that for all x_2, if x_2 makes tea, then x_2 is reading a book, which contradicts that There is at least one x_2 for which the fact that x_2 makes tea does not imply that x_2 is reading a book. Therefore, the answer is no.