Consider the following premises. For all x_9, x_9 is rich or x_9 is a lawyer. For all x_9, if x_9 were a writer, then x_9 is a soldier. For all x_9, if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is a writer. There is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a soldier, then x_9 is a police officer. For all x_9, if x_9 plays a game, then x_9 is a police officer. For all x_9, x_9 is not rich or x_9 will play a game. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_9, x_9 is not a police officer.
 From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were a writer, then x_9 is a soldier, and that there is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a soldier, then x_9 is a police officer we can infer that there is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a writer, then x_9 is a police officer. From the fact that for all x_9, x_9 is rich or x_9 is a lawyer, and that for all x_9, x_9 is not rich or x_9 will play a game we can infer that for all x_9, x_9 is a lawyer or x_9 will play a game. From the fact that for all x_9, if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is a writer, and that there is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a writer, then x_9 is a police officer we can infer that there is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is a police officer. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_9 for which if x_9 were a lawyer, then x_9 is a police officer, that for all x_9, if x_9 plays a game, then x_9 is a police officer, and that for all x_9, x_9 is a lawyer or x_9 will play a game we can infer that there is at least one x_9 for which x_9 is a police officer, which contradicts that For all x_9, x_9 is not a police officer. Therefore, the answer is no.