Is there a form that follows:

A‑m→B

A←s→C

--------

A←s→C?

really seems like the principle supports two different conclusions whether it is legal to strike... H: it is legal because very few exceptions because of xyz reason . M: well I think it is illegal because of xyzzy reason...

I really dont understand - BUT NOT CONSUMED - it means all coal you mined - PERIOD. If there is less coal in inventory in 1990 compared to 1991 it just means in 1990 you mined 100 coal and in 1991 you mined 80. I don't understand how we are meant to presume 20 coal was consumed - it just means 20 less of it was mined. No?

But there's also no evidence that the effect of any of the three power sources will be worse environment degradation than existing gas emissions. Quite literally E says - you won't reduce environmental impact (which means it can stay the say or even be more) thus it seems to be better supported.

How do we translate these 3 into diagrams?

I understand that the correct answer tacks the conclusion. But how does C not play a role in completing the logic of the conclusion? Since it (if assumed true) would connect the two premises together to support the conclusion.

confused why the some negative isn't the same as in previous lesson:

Original: P ←s→ C

Negated: /(P ←s→ C)

Negated: P → /C

Am I missing something? how the excerpt above become incorrect negation for unicorns and poop example?