Consider the following premises. For all x_14, if x_14 were a cashier, then x_14 is a poet. For all x_14, x_14 will listen to a song if and only if x_14 will climb a mountain. For all x_14, if x_14 were a poet, then x_14 is climbing a mountain. There is at least one x_14 for which x_14 will not listen to a song. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_14, x_14 is a cashier.
 From the fact that for all x_14, x_14 will listen to a song if and only if x_14 will climb a mountain, and that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 will not listen to a song we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 will not climb a mountain. From the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 were a poet, then x_14 is climbing a mountain, and that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 will not climb a mountain we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is not a poet. Finally, from the fact that for all x_14, if x_14 were a cashier, then x_14 is a poet, and that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is not a poet we can infer that there is at least one x_14 for which x_14 is not a cashier, which contradicts that For all x_14, x_14 is a cashier. Therefore, the answer is no.