Consider the following premises. For all x_11, x_11 will drive a car. For all x_11, if x_11 plays squash, then x_11 is not a cashier. For all x_11, if x_11 drinks water, then x_11 is a cashier. There is at least one x_11 for which if x_11 drives a car, then x_11 is drinking water. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_11, x_11 will play squash.
 From the fact that there is at least one x_11 for which if x_11 drives a car, then x_11 is drinking water, and that for all x_11, x_11 will drive a car we can infer that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 will drink water. From the fact that for all x_11, if x_11 drinks water, then x_11 is a cashier, and that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 will drink water we can infer that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 is a cashier. Finally, from the fact that for all x_11, if x_11 plays squash, then x_11 is not a cashier, and that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 is a cashier we can infer that there is at least one x_11 for which x_11 will not play squash, which contradicts that For all x_11, x_11 will play squash. Therefore, the answer is no.