Question 1
Answer: A
This was a really tricky one unless you realised that you could focus on just one rule and work from there. Start by looking at the Mischief Rule and you'll see at least three examples of the Mischief Rule being described as rarer or less desirable to judges (albeit not in such an obvious fashion). Option B was a close contender, but A takes the top spot as the literal rule is discussed almost as a ‘default’ rule.
Question 2
Answer: E
Though option C is convincing, Lord Reid in the third paragraph makes the real answer quite clear. This answer is unambiguous.
Question 3
Answer: D
Option E was almost correct but the conclusion is quite strongly worded (along with the unusually elucidating introduction) to show the author's view that the current methods are quite well balanced. Identifying issues does not mean that the author disagrees with the system; judicial discretion is necessary as without it the author notes that we could end up with absurd results. Despite certain tensions in statutory interpretation, the author thinks the current system balances quite well.
Question 4
Answer: C
Imagine you only had five seconds to rebut this author's whole argument, which would you choose to say? B and D are easily removed, A is weaker than E so that leaves us with a balance between C and E. Even if E may be stronger as a general argument, C tackles issues dealt with by this author more strongly, thus, C is the correct answer. The author’s (cautious) defence of these methods does not adequately rebut the idea that ‘the will of parliament’ is too vague; does it mean the will of the parliament that made it, or the will of parliament now?