Consider the following premises. For all x_17, if x_17 plays tennis, then x_17 is not a politician. For all x_17, if x_17 plays a game, then x_17 is playing tennis. There is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were an astronaut, then x_17 is playing a game. For all x_17, x_17 is a politician. For all x_17, if x_17 drives a car, then x_17 is an astronaut. For all x_17, if x_17 plays tennis, then x_17 is an astronaut. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_17, x_17 will drive a car.
 From the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 plays tennis, then x_17 is not a politician, and that for all x_17, x_17 is a politician we can infer that for all x_17, x_17 will not play tennis. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were an astronaut, then x_17 is playing a game, and that for all x_17, if x_17 plays a game, then x_17 is playing tennis we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were an astronaut, then x_17 is playing tennis. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which if x_17 were an astronaut, then x_17 is playing tennis, and that for all x_17, if x_17 plays tennis, then x_17 is an astronaut we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is an astronaut if and only if x_17 will play tennis. From the fact that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is an astronaut if and only if x_17 will play tennis, and that for all x_17, x_17 will not play tennis we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not an astronaut. Finally, from the fact that for all x_17, if x_17 drives a car, then x_17 is an astronaut, and that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 is not an astronaut we can infer that there is at least one x_17 for which x_17 will not drive a car, which contradicts that For all x_17, x_17 will drive a car. Therefore, the answer is no.