Consider the following premises. For all x_11, x_11 will play squash or x_11 is not an electrician. For all x_11, x_11 will take a plane or x_11 will not play squash. For all x_11, if x_11 takes a plane, then x_11 is an electrician. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_11 for which the fact that x_11 were an electrician does not imply that x_11 is playing squash.
 From the fact that for all x_11, x_11 will play squash or x_11 is not an electrician we can infer that for all x_11, if x_11 were an electrician, then x_11 is playing squash. From the fact that for all x_11, x_11 will take a plane or x_11 will not play squash we can infer that for all x_11, if x_11 plays squash, then x_11 is taking a plane. From the fact that for all x_11, if x_11 plays squash, then x_11 is taking a plane, and that for all x_11, if x_11 takes a plane, then x_11 is an electrician we can infer that for all x_11, if x_11 plays squash, then x_11 is an electrician. From the fact that for all x_11, if x_11 plays squash, then x_11 is an electrician, and that for all x_11, if x_11 were an electrician, then x_11 is playing squash we can infer that for all x_11, x_11 will play squash if and only if x_11 is an electrician. Finally, from the fact that for all x_11, x_11 will play squash if and only if x_11 is an electrician we can infer that for all x_11, if x_11 were an electrician, then x_11 is playing squash, which contradicts that There is at least one x_11 for which the fact that x_11 were an electrician does not imply that x_11 is playing squash. Therefore, the answer is no.