Consider the following premises. For all x_9, x_9 will not go running. There is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a cashier, then x_9 is a server. For all x_9, if x_9 were a server, then x_9 is a cashier. For all x_9, x_9 is a cashier if and only if x_9 will go running. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_9, x_9 is a server.
 From the fact that for all x_9, x_9 is a cashier if and only if x_9 will go running we can infer that for all x_9, if x_9 were a cashier, then x_9 is running. From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were a server, then x_9 is a cashier, and that there is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a cashier, then x_9 is a server we can infer that there is at least one x_9 for which x_9 is a server if and only if x_9 is a cashier. From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were a cashier, then x_9 is running, and that for all x_9, x_9 will not go running we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 is not a cashier. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_9 for which x_9 is a server if and only if x_9 is a cashier, and that for all x_9, x_9 is not a cashier we can infer that there is at least one x_9 for which x_9 is not a server, which contradicts that For all x_9, x_9 is a server. Therefore, the answer is no.