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