Consider the following premises. For all x_10, x_10 will cook or x_10 is an office clerk. For all x_10, x_10 is a cashier or x_10 will not cook. For all x_10, if x_10 were an office clerk, then x_10 is poor. For all x_10, if x_10 were poor, then x_10 is a cashier. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_10 for which neither x_10 is a cashier nor x_10 is fast.
 From the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is a cashier or x_10 will not cook we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 cooks, then x_10 is a cashier. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were an office clerk, then x_10 is poor, and that for all x_10, if x_10 were poor, then x_10 is a cashier we can infer that for all x_10, if x_10 were an office clerk, then x_10 is a cashier. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 cooks, then x_10 is a cashier, that for all x_10, if x_10 were an office clerk, then x_10 is a cashier, and that for all x_10, x_10 will cook or x_10 is an office clerk we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is a cashier. Finally, from the fact that for all x_10, x_10 is a cashier we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is a cashier or x_10 is fast, which contradicts that There is at least one x_10 for which neither x_10 is a cashier nor x_10 is fast. Therefore, the answer is no.