Consider the following premises. For all x_13, x_13 is a police officer or x_13 is not a janitor. There is at least one x_13 for which if x_13 were a janitor, then x_13 is rich. For all x_13, x_13 is not a police officer. For all x_13, x_13 is rich if and only if x_13 is a janitor. Can we infer the following from them? For all x_13, x_13 is rich.
 From the fact that for all x_13, x_13 is rich if and only if x_13 is a janitor we can infer that for all x_13, if x_13 were rich, then x_13 is a janitor. From the fact that for all x_13, x_13 is a police officer or x_13 is not a janitor we can infer that for all x_13, if x_13 were a janitor, then x_13 is a police officer. From the fact that there is at least one x_13 for which if x_13 were a janitor, then x_13 is rich, and that for all x_13, if x_13 were rich, then x_13 is a janitor we can infer that there is at least one x_13 for which x_13 is a janitor if and only if x_13 is rich. From the fact that for all x_13, if x_13 were a janitor, then x_13 is a police officer, and that for all x_13, x_13 is not a police officer we can infer that for all x_13, x_13 is not a janitor. Finally, from the fact that there is at least one x_13 for which x_13 is a janitor if and only if x_13 is rich, and that for all x_13, x_13 is not a janitor we can infer that there is at least one x_13 for which x_13 is not rich, which contradicts that For all x_13, x_13 is rich. Therefore, the answer is no.