Consider the following premises. For all x_16, x_16 will not work. For all x_16, if x_16 plays tennis, then x_16 is poor. For all x_16, x_16 will play tennis or x_16 is a bartender. For all x_16, x_16 is a scientist if and only if x_16 will work. For all x_16, if x_16 were poor, then x_16 is a scientist. For all x_16, x_16 is a cashier. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_16 for which either x_16 is a cashier or x_16 is a bartender are not true.
 From the fact that for all x_16, x_16 is a scientist if and only if x_16 will work, and that for all x_16, x_16 will not work we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is not a scientist. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 plays tennis, then x_16 is poor, and that for all x_16, if x_16 were poor, then x_16 is a scientist we can infer that for all x_16, if x_16 plays tennis, then x_16 is a scientist. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 plays tennis, then x_16 is a scientist, and that for all x_16, x_16 is not a scientist we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 will not play tennis. From the fact that for all x_16, x_16 will play tennis or x_16 is a bartender, and that for all x_16, x_16 will not play tennis we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is a bartender. Finally, from the fact that for all x_16, x_16 is a cashier, and that for all x_16, x_16 is a bartender we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is a cashier and x_16 is a bartender, which contradicts that There is at least one x_16 for which either x_16 is a cashier or x_16 is a bartender are not true. Therefore, the answer is no.