Consider the following premises. For all x_5, if x_5 were a cashier, then x_5 is a carpenter. For all x_5, x_5 will make tea. For all x_5, if x_5 were a carpenter, then x_5 is not making tea. For all x_5, if x_5 were a carpenter, then x_5 is a cashier. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_5 for which x_5 is a cashier.
 From the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 were a cashier, then x_5 is a carpenter, and that for all x_5, if x_5 were a carpenter, then x_5 is a cashier we can infer that for all x_5, x_5 is a cashier if and only if x_5 is a carpenter. From the fact that for all x_5, if x_5 were a carpenter, then x_5 is not making tea, and that for all x_5, x_5 will make tea we can infer that for all x_5, x_5 is not a carpenter. Finally, from the fact that for all x_5, x_5 is a cashier if and only if x_5 is a carpenter, and that for all x_5, x_5 is not a carpenter we can infer that for all x_5, x_5 is not a cashier, which contradicts that There is at least one x_5 for which x_5 is a cashier. Therefore, the answer is no.