Consider the following premises. For all x_9, x_9 will play tennis if and only if x_9 is a police officer. For all x_9, x_9 is a police officer if and only if x_9 will play tennis. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_9 for which the fact that x_9 plays tennis does not imply that x_9 is a police officer.
 From the fact that for all x_9, x_9 will play tennis if and only if x_9 is a police officer we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 were a police officer, then x_9 is playing tennis. From the fact that for all x_9, x_9 is a police officer if and only if x_9 will play tennis we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 plays tennis, then x_9 is a police officer. From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 plays tennis, then x_9 is a police officer, and that for all x_9, if x_9 were a police officer, then x_9 is playing tennis we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 will play tennis if and only if x_9 is a police officer. Finally, from the fact that for all x_9, x_9 will play tennis if and only if x_9 is a police officer we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 plays tennis, then x_9 is a police officer, which contradicts that There is at least one x_9 for which the fact that x_9 plays tennis does not imply that x_9 is a police officer. Therefore, the answer is no.