Consider the following premises. There is at least one x_10 for which if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is a cashier. For all x_10, x_10 is a sailor or x_10 is a server. For all x_10, if x_10 were a server, then x_10 is bored. For all x_10, if x_10 were a sailor, then x_10 is bored. For all x_10, if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is not bored. For all x_10, if x_10 were a cashier, then x_10 is playing squash. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_10, x_10 is a cashier.
 From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 were a sailor, then x_10 is bored, that for all x_10, if x_10 were a server, then x_10 is bored, and that for all x_10, x_10 is a sailor or x_10 is a server we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 is bored. From the fact that there is at least one x_10 for which if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is a cashier, and that for all x_10, if x_10 were a cashier, then x_10 is playing squash we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will play squash if and only if x_10 is a cashier. From the fact that for all x_10, if x_10 plays squash, then x_10 is not bored, and that for all x_10, x_10 is bored we can infer that for all x_10, x_10 will not play squash. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 will play squash if and only if x_10 is a cashier, and that for all x_10, x_10 will not play squash we can infer that there is at least one x_10 for which x_10 is not a cashier, which contradicts that For all x_10, x_10 is a cashier. Therefore, the answer is no.