Consider the following premises. For all x_10, x_10 will not go running. For all x_10, if x_10 were poor, then x_10 is running. For all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain if and only if x_10 is poor. For all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is drinking water. For all x_10, if x_10 drinks water, then x_10 is climbing a mountain. For all x_10, if x_10 goes running, then x_10 is poor. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will drink water.
 From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were poor, then x_10 is running, and that for all x_10, if x_10 goes running, then x_10 is poor we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is poor if and only if x_10 will go running. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is drinking water, and that for all x_10, if x_10 drinks water, then x_10 is climbing a mountain we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain if and only if x_10 will drink water. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is poor if and only if x_10 will go running, and that for all x_10, x_10 will not go running we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is not poor. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain if and only if x_10 is poor, and that for all x_10, x_10 is not poor we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will not climb a mountain. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain if and only if x_10 will drink water, and that for all x_10, x_10 will not climb a mountain we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will not drink water, which contradicts that There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will drink water. Therefore, the answer is no.