Consider the following premises. For all x_10, if x_10 reads a book, then x_10 is playing squash. For all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is reading a book. For all x_10, if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is climbing a mountain. For all x_10, if x_10 plays tennis, then x_10 is a cashier. For all x_10, if x_10 reads a book, then x_10 is a cashier. There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will play tennis or x_10 will climb a mountain. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is a cashier.
 From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 reads a book, then x_10 is playing squash, and that for all x_10, if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is climbing a mountain we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 reads a book, then x_10 is climbing a mountain. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is reading a book, and that for all x_10, if x_10 reads a book, then x_10 is climbing a mountain we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain if and only if x_10 will read a book. From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 will climb a mountain if and only if x_10 will read a book we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is reading a book. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is reading a book, and that for all x_10, if x_10 reads a book, then x_10 is a cashier we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is a cashier. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 plays tennis, then x_10 is a cashier, that for all x_10, if x_10 climbs a mountain, then x_10 is a cashier, and that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will play tennis or x_10 will climb a mountain we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is a cashier. Therefore, the answer is yes.