Consider the following premises. For all x_12, x_12 is not a soldier. For all x_12, x_12 is curious if and only if x_12 will play squash. For all x_12, if x_12 plays squash, then x_12 is curious. For all x_12, x_12 is a soldier or x_12 will not play squash. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_12 for which x_12 is curious.
 From the fact that for all x_12, x_12 is curious if and only if x_12 will play squash we can infer that for all x_12, if x_12 were curious, then x_12 is playing squash. From the fact that for all x_12, if x_12 were curious, then x_12 is playing squash, and that for all x_12, if x_12 plays squash, then x_12 is curious we can infer that for all x_12, x_12 is curious if and only if x_12 will play squash. From the fact that for all x_12, x_12 is a soldier or x_12 will not play squash we can infer that for all x_12, if x_12 plays squash, then x_12 is a soldier. From the fact that for all x_12, if x_12 plays squash, then x_12 is a soldier, and that for all x_12, x_12 is not a soldier we can infer that for all x_12, x_12 will not play squash. Finally, from the fact that for all x_12, x_12 is curious if and only if x_12 will play squash, and that for all x_12, x_12 will not play squash we can infer that for all x_12, x_12 is not curious, which contradicts that There is at least one x_12 for which x_12 is curious. Therefore, the answer is no.