Do causal relationships/comparative statements require contrapositives?

legalqueen24

I'm going through the "Skill Builder - Group 2 Translations" unit of the Conditional and Set Logic section in the Core Curriculum and I'm having some trouble understanding why contrapositives were not used for questions 7.1-7.5. Was looking through the forums and comments under that unit and couldn't find much that explained why contrapositives weren't being used here. I did, however, see a comment that mentioned contrapositives not being used because the conditional language was used to express a potential causal relationship (more than a sufficient-necessary relationship). However, it still seems that those statements are conditional with comparative and causal elements (at least based on the explanations provided for those statements and how I and others interpreted them).

So would statements indicating there being causal and/or comparative elements not require contrapositives, especially if the statements can also be translated into lawgic and indicate there being a sufficient/necessary relationship??

My apologies in advanced if this type of question is meant to go under that unit and not in the discussion forum. It's just that there wasn't much of a response (if any) from the tutors about this.