CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHAT "MISLMATCHED PREMISE AND CONCLUSION" MEANS PLEASE T_T

So "most closely conforms to the principle" requires content taken literally, while "pattern of reasoning" focuses on the structure? I am so confused

I was confused because I reduced the stim to

Intervention -> Survive

Preservation -> Survive

And I assumed because S=S that Intervention=Preservation, but I and P can be two separate entities that both contribute to S, and overlap is not necessary for the logic to work.

Medina "shares her opinion" = "shares [KAY'S] opinion." We don't know Medina's gender, and the possessive pronoun refers to Kay.

#help

Intuitively I would kick up resident to the domain and get

Domain: Resident

/purpose —> prohibit

/prohibit —> purpose,

But would mean the embedded conditional is

Resident —> (/purpose —> prohibit)

Is that logically equivalent to

/purpose —> (Resident —> prohibit)

?

Intuitively, I feel like the answer is yes, they are logically equivalent, because if you simplify the embedded conditional into their respective joint sufficient conditionals it would be

1. Resident + /purpose —> Prohibit

2. /purpose + Resident —> Prohibit

…which in my understanding ARE logically equivalent? Or does the order in which conjunct sufficient conditions appear affect the meaning of the conditional?

But I am confused because this means the English should say “All animals that don’t serve a legitimate medical purpose are prohibited unless you are a resident”…?

Am I misunderstanding something? Is there a scenario in which this would not work?