Consider the following premises. For all x_6, if x_6 were rich, then x_6 is curious. For all x_6, x_6 is a bartender if and only if x_6 is curious. For all x_6, if x_6 were a bartender, then x_6 is rich. Can we infer the following from them? There is at least one x_6 for which the fact that x_6 were a bartender does not imply that x_6 is curious.
 From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 were a bartender, then x_6 is rich, and that for all x_6, if x_6 were rich, then x_6 is curious we can infer that for all x_6, if x_6 were a bartender, then x_6 is curious. From the fact that for all x_6, x_6 is a bartender if and only if x_6 is curious we can infer that for all x_6, if x_6 were curious, then x_6 is a bartender. From the fact that for all x_6, if x_6 were curious, then x_6 is a bartender, and that for all x_6, if x_6 were a bartender, then x_6 is curious we can infer that for all x_6, x_6 is curious if and only if x_6 is a bartender. Finally, from the fact that for all x_6, x_6 is curious if and only if x_6 is a bartender we can infer that for all x_6, if x_6 were a bartender, then x_6 is curious, which contradicts that There is at least one x_6 for which the fact that x_6 were a bartender does not imply that x_6 is curious. Therefore, the answer is no.