That was amusing... now to get picky.
I can't decide, but I feel #10 is ambiguous enough to be wrong.
"Paris is in New Zealand." is not the same thing as
"Paris is wholely contained within New Zealand"
So if we answer this as a question posed on set membership (as implied by 'in') we have a problem. (Thus assuming Paris is a set not a element which is also part of the problem here)
As a logic statement:
There exists no x in Paris that is not also in New Zealand.
All members of Paris are members of New Zealand
There exists an x in Paris in that is also in New Zealand.