#help In the Zebra example, couldn't you switch the premise and conclusion?

Let's say we take it to be true that "the reason for zebras coats are protection from flies". Doesn't that make it more likely that "fewer flies landed on zebras"?

#help in the example of the murder weapon, couldn't we say that "The defendant is guilty" could support the claim that "The fingerprint on the weapon matches the defendant's"? Because if we take the claim that "The defendant is guilty" to be true, wouldn't that increase the likelihood that "The fingerprint on the weapon matches the defendant's". So we could techincally switch which one is the premise or conclusion?

Is the arrow for several a biconditional? #help

For question 8, what does the "it" in the exception "he actually believes that it does not exist" refer to? #help

This is how I interpreted #9. Is this an incorrect way of understanding the sentence? #help

Domain: in surrounding countries

where (hunting is permitted), (the size of the deer population has not increased in the last eight years).

where (hunting) (/increased)

hunting -> /increased

increased -> /hunting

When converting to lawgic, I split the "3 months or more" condition to apply both to the open condition and the notirous condition, like this:

NYC resident + living in 10+ units + animal has been kept openly for 3 months or more + animal has been kept notoriously for 3 months or more -> right to keep a pet

Is this an incorrect interpretation? #help

How would you take the contrapositive of M -> N and O? #help

#help Is "requires" considered a group 2 indicator?