Consider the following premises. There is at least one z_3 for which if z_3 plays tennis, then z_3 is an artist. For all z_3, if z_3 were an artist, then z_3 is playing tennis. For all z_3, if z_3 plays tennis, then z_3 is an artist. For all z_3, z_3 is not an artist. Can we infer the following from them? For all z_3, z_3 will play tennis.
 From the fact that there is at least one z_3 for which if z_3 plays tennis, then z_3 is an artist, and that for all z_3, if z_3 were an artist, then z_3 is playing tennis we can infer that there is at least one z_3 for which z_3 will play tennis if and only if z_3 is an artist. From the fact that there is at least one z_3 for which z_3 will play tennis if and only if z_3 is an artist we can infer that there is at least one z_3 for which if z_3 were an artist, then z_3 is playing tennis. From the fact that there is at least one z_3 for which if z_3 were an artist, then z_3 is playing tennis, and that for all z_3, if z_3 plays tennis, then z_3 is an artist we can infer that there is at least one z_3 for which z_3 is an artist if and only if z_3 will play tennis. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one z_3 for which z_3 is an artist if and only if z_3 will play tennis, and that for all z_3, z_3 is not an artist we can infer that there is at least one z_3 for which z_3 will not play tennis, which contradicts that For all z_3, z_3 will play tennis. Therefore, the answer is no.