Consider the following premises. For all x_13, if x_13 were rich, then x_13 is playing squash. For all x_13, if x_13 goes running, then x_13 is a bartender. For all x_13, if x_13 were a bartender, then x_13 is running. For all x_13, x_13 is a bartender if and only if x_13 will play squash. For all x_13, x_13 will not go running. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_13 for which x_13 is rich.
 From the fact that for all x_13, if x_13 were a bartender, then x_13 is running, and that for all x_13, if x_13 goes running, then x_13 is a bartender we can infer that for all x_13, x_13 is a bartender if and only if x_13 will go running. From the fact that for all x_13, x_13 is a bartender if and only if x_13 will go running we can infer that for all x_13, if x_13 were a bartender, then x_13 is running. From the fact that for all x_13, if x_13 were a bartender, then x_13 is running, and that for all x_13, x_13 will not go running we can infer that for all x_13, x_13 is not a bartender. From the fact that for all x_13, x_13 is a bartender if and only if x_13 will play squash, and that for all x_13, x_13 is not a bartender we can infer that for all x_13, x_13 will not play squash. Finally, from the fact that for all x_13, if x_13 were rich, then x_13 is playing squash, and that for all x_13, x_13 will not play squash we can infer that for all x_13, x_13 is not rich, which contradicts that There is at least one x_13 for which x_13 is rich. Therefore, the answer is no.