Consider the following premises. For all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is driving a car. For all x_9, x_9 is bored. For all x_9, if x_9 were bored, then x_9 is rich. For all x_9, x_9 will cook. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_9 for which x_9 will not drive a car.
 From the fact that for all x_9, x_9 is bored, and that for all x_9, x_9 will cook we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 is bored and x_9 will cook. From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were bored, then x_9 is rich, and that for all x_9, if x_9 were rich, then x_9 is driving a car we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 were bored, then x_9 is driving a car. From the fact that for all x_9, x_9 is bored and x_9 will cook we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 is bored. Finally, from the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were bored, then x_9 is driving a car, and that for all x_9, x_9 is bored we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 will drive a car, which contradicts that There is at least one x_9 for which x_9 will not drive a car. Therefore, the answer is no.