The Answer to the Question
is below this banner.
Here's the Solution to this Question
-By the second premise, we have that there is a lion that does not drink coffee, let it be Leo
-Using simplification we can tell that Leo is a lion.
-Now using modus ponens on the first premise we know that Leo is fierce.
-So Leo is fierce and doesn't drink coffee.
-Now using existential generalization, we can say that there exists creature that is fierce, and does not drink coffee.
Hence the argument is valid