Consider the following premises. There is at least one z for which z is a cashier or z is not a lawyer. For all z, if z were a cashier, then z is bored. For all z, z is a lawyer. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one z for which z is bored.
 From the fact that there is at least one z for which z is a cashier or z is not a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one z for which if z were a lawyer, then z is a cashier. From the fact that there is at least one z for which if z were a lawyer, then z is a cashier, and that for all z, if z were a cashier, then z is bored we can infer that there is at least one z for which if z were a lawyer, then z is bored. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one z for which if z were a lawyer, then z is bored, and that for all z, z is a lawyer we can infer that there is at least one z for which z is bored. Therefore, the answer is yes.