There is nothing wrong with posing multiple related questions on this forum. There however is a certain inadvertent cadre of individuals who in their well intentioned efforts to police content in our knowledge base are quick to find any reason to close a question without any regard for the potential value added to the knowledge base. Some of these users are quite explicit in their motivations, and they are entitled to their votes as any user is, and others are what Slashdot.org were once called anonymous cowards, although apathy is more likely the cause.
This group of users is a good example of how a group of people can be less functionally intelligent than their members combined, a point I raised when I pointed out an extreme case when five users closed a question about a topic that unequivocally has an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I've documented a preexisting recognition of this pattern though my various metaposts. This, dear user, is not a flaw in your questions, but a flaw in the governance mechanism.
Were you to pose the questions in a single Q&A entry, it would have been closed down for not being focused. That you posted across multiple questions is a testament to your intelligence in using this shared resource. However, by posing a series of questions that are similar in appearance likely triggered another heuristic, the "no homework allowed!" objection. This inference isn't unwarranted, but certainly not deductively valid.
This is a case where can and should intersect to the detriment of the knowledge base, and the governing impulse of active voters is geared towards economy rather than quality. Until there is a reformation of governance which redirects the well meaning but unimaginative impulse to close without any real critical thinking, you have to outsmart the collective... impulse.
The primary strategy you can embrace is vary your syntax to foil shallow searches by key words. Just playing with the surface and deep structure will be enough to create the appearance of distance in meaning to confound shallow parsing of the text as a hair-trigger for closure. Secondly, stagger your questions over the course of days or the week instead of back to back. This will defeat the hair-trigger for closure based on the presumption this is some sort of homework or automation or "it's different so it's suspicious" objection. Embracing these two strategies will allow you to do an end run around the lazy thinking that led to your closure in the first place. Lastly, your questions themselves lend themselves to various fair criticisms such as the "opinion objection" as found in the FAQs. I have some tips for improving questions here.