Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_6 for which if x_6 were a lawyer, then x_6 is playing a game. For all x_6, if x_6 plays a game, then x_6 is playing squash. For all x_6, if x_6 plays squash, then x_6 is drinking water. For all x_6, x_6 will not drink water. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_6, x_6 is a lawyer.
 From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 plays a game, then x_6 is playing squash, and that for all x_6, if x_6 plays squash, then x_6 is drinking water we can infer that for all x_6, if x_6 plays a game, then x_6 is drinking water. From the fact that there is at least one x_6 for which if x_6 were a lawyer, then x_6 is playing a game, and that for all x_6, if x_6 plays a game, then x_6 is drinking water we can infer that there is at least one x_6 for which if x_6 were a lawyer, then x_6 is drinking water. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_6 for which if x_6 were a lawyer, then x_6 is drinking water, and that for all x_6, x_6 will not drink water we can infer that there is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is not a lawyer, which contradicts that For all x_6, x_6 is a lawyer. Therefore, the answer is no.