Consider the following premises. For all x_6, if x_6 were rich, then x_6 is bored. There is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is a cashier. For all x_6, if x_6 were poor, then x_6 is bored. For all x_6, if x_6 were a cashier, then x_6 is rich. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_6, x_6 is not bored.
 From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 were a cashier, then x_6 is rich, and that there is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is a cashier we can infer that there is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is rich. From the fact that there is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is rich we can infer that there is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is rich or x_6 is poor. Finally, from the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 were rich, then x_6 is bored, that for all x_6, if x_6 were poor, then x_6 is bored, and that there is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is rich or x_6 is poor we can infer that there is at least one x_6 for which x_6 is bored, which contradicts that For all x_6, x_6 is not bored. Therefore, the answer is no.