Consider the following premises. For all x_10, x_10 is not a soldier. For all x_10, x_10 is a taxi driver or x_10 is not a server. For all x_10, if x_10 were a server, then x_10 is a soldier. For all x_10, if x_10 were a taxi driver, then x_10 is a server. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is a taxi driver.
 From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were a server, then x_10 is a soldier, and that for all x_10, x_10 is not a soldier we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is not a server. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is a taxi driver or x_10 is not a server we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 were a server, then x_10 is a taxi driver. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were a server, then x_10 is a taxi driver, and that for all x_10, if x_10 were a taxi driver, then x_10 is a server we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is a server if and only if x_10 is a taxi driver. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is a server if and only if x_10 is a taxi driver we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 were a taxi driver, then x_10 is a server. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were a taxi driver, then x_10 is a server, and that for all x_10, x_10 is not a server we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is not a taxi driver, which contradicts that There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is a taxi driver. Therefore, the answer is no.