Consider the following premises. For all x_16, if x_16 cooks, then x_16 is a server. For all x_16, x_16 will climb a mountain or x_16 will cook. For all x_16, if x_16 plays squash, then x_16 is playing a game. For all x_16, if x_16 were a server, then x_16 is playing squash. For all x_16, if x_16 plays a game, then x_16 is an office clerk. For all x_16, if x_16 climbs a mountain, then x_16 is a server. For all x_16, x_16 is poor. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_16 for which either x_16 is poor or x_16 is an office clerk are not true.
 From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 climbs a mountain, then x_16 is a server, that for all x_16, if x_16 cooks, then x_16 is a server, and that for all x_16, x_16 will climb a mountain or x_16 will cook we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is a server. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 were a server, then x_16 is playing squash, and that for all x_16, x_16 is a server we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 will play squash. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 plays squash, then x_16 is playing a game, and that for all x_16, x_16 will play squash we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 will play a game. From the fact that for all x_16, if x_16 plays a game, then x_16 is an office clerk, and that for all x_16, x_16 will play a game we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is an office clerk. Finally, from the fact that for all x_16, x_16 is poor, and that for all x_16, x_16 is an office clerk we can infer that for all x_16, x_16 is poor and x_16 is an office clerk, which contradicts that There is at least one x_16 for which either x_16 is poor or x_16 is an office clerk are not true. Therefore, the answer is no.