Consider the following premises. For all x_6, if x_6 were a writer, then x_6 is a poet. For all x_6, if x_6 were a poet, then x_6 is a writer. For all x_6, x_6 will not go running. For all x_6, if x_6 were a poet, then x_6 is running. For all x_6, if x_6 goes running, then x_6 is a poet. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is a writer.
 From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 were a poet, then x_6 is running, and that for all x_6, if x_6 goes running, then x_6 is a poet we can infer that for all x_6, x_6 is a poet if and only if x_6 will go running. From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 were a poet, then x_6 is a writer, and that for all x_6, if x_6 were a writer, then x_6 is a poet we can infer that for all x_6, x_6 is a poet if and only if x_6 is a writer. From the fact that for all x_6, x_6 is a poet if and only if x_6 will go running, and that for all x_6, x_6 will not go running we can infer that for all x_6, x_6 is not a poet. Finally, from the fact that for all x_6, x_6 is a poet if and only if x_6 is a writer, and that for all x_6, x_6 is not a poet we can infer that for all x_6, x_6 is not a writer, which contradicts that There is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is a writer. Therefore, the answer is no.