Question 1
Answer: E
What does the MP say? Build only when (1) there is "no real alternative", (2) where it "doesn't increase other peoples' flood risk", and (3) the buildings are "flood resilient".
A and B are clearly wrong. C potentially fails (1) and (3) above. D fails on (2). E potentially fails (2) but it is unlikely. Thus, option E is the most viable option.
Question 2
Answer: D
Option A is not the author's argument at all so cannot fit the quote. C and E are implications that we can draw from the quote but nothing more than that. E is true to the author's view but has no real relevance to the quote. B is true but the phrase "mitigating flood risks" encompasses "without impacting pre-established communities" so D encompasses more and is, therefore, more likely to be correct.
Question 3
Answer: A
B has no relation to the text and D is quite a stretched interpretation. E is probably a reason but it is difficult to say that it is "the reason" compared to more likely answers in A and C. Ultimately, A and C are very similar, the difference is that A is not directed to a specific person or group of people whereas C is directed directly at the government. A short piece like this would not be written as a proposal to the government, it is short and vague. Thus, with relative ease, we can select A.
Question 4
Answer: C
A strange question, but one that comes up in one way or another quite frequently. There is no chance that this is Party political material (reference to "an MP" etc. suggests that the author does not care about Party politics or who makes the change). B is clearly false, this is a short and vague text so does not look at all academic. "Leaflet" is an odd option but this text is clearly too 'wordy' for a leaflet (which you would expect to have lists and be much more to the point with sub-headings). This is clearly not an extract from a book (E is a waste of space!). You may expect a short opinion piece like this in a professional blog, perhaps a political tabloid or the opinion section of a broadsheet.