Question 1
Answer: D
This was a simple comprehension exercise that required you to identify where in the text the quotes were. Ultimately, option D did not describe dog fighting as reprehensible, instead there is the suggestion that having their pet "sent away" is negative, they had bought them covertly from foreign countries to get one from a "'prestigious' bloodline" (note the distain conveyed by the inverted commas) and, the nail in the coffin, "very unfortunately legal". There is no statement of hatred for dog fighting but there are heavy indications that the author dislikes all factors leading up to such fights.
Question 2
Answer: E
The answer is more-or-less provided at the end of the introduction "on no objective view can the Dangerous Dogs Act be seen as ground-breaking legislation as it fails to deal with the actual crime, let alone the foundational causes". Here we are told that the "actual crime" has not even been dealt with "let alone [less important factors]". This is a statement that tells us the Dangerous Dogs Act does not 'combat dog fighting in any meaningful way'.
Option A is a clear example of a 'foundational cause' (i.e. a component of relevance but not important on its own). Option D is not mentioned in the text with regard to the Act, indeed, the Act would not be able to deal with the international component and there is no suggestion that it should. B and C are probably quite convincing answers and can only really be removed by balancing with E (see explanation of why E must be correct above).
Question 3
Answer: A
We need to be careful not to read too much into the relevant quote. Ultimately, it is very difficult to work out what the author means. Option E is clearly wrong, it would not be 'surprising' if E was the author's preconception! C is too wide-ranging because we only know the author's view insofar as he thinks dogfighters should be subject to financial penalties rather than prison sentences, we do not know if this is his general view for other crimes (in fact, we can infer that it is not!). That leaves us with A, B and D. B and D are more negative versions of A (i.e. A says they are 'not wealthy' where B and D says they are 'poor'). The answer rests on how extreme the inference we can make from the text can be. In this case, the text gives us such a small amount to work with that we struggle to make strong inferences that depart from the wording too far. As such, we should stick to the option that uses the author's own language ("wealthy") for fear of mischaracterising his view with quasi-synonyms of "not wealthy" like "very poor" or "poor".
Question 4
Answer: D
The examples involving the USA should not immediately be dismissed (though some of you will have removed them as possible without much thought), particularly option C which is probably the most convincing (after the answer D, of course). Options A and B are, however, quite clearly wrong. A deals with a point that does not directly contrast one of the author's points and B gives no indication of what Americans actually think about the legality of Pitfalls (though you should have been mindful of the fact that it may suggest Pitbull Terriers are perceived as more dangerous, it does not more than show that 'perception' which the author clearly argues is false).
Option E may have fooled a small number of you, but read the words compared to D. E says "still capable" where D says "more likely"! Finally, C is the most convincing aside from D, but cannot be seen as being as good as D because it is a comparison to other breeds (of which we do not know the statistics) compared to a fact stated in D that they are "more likely" to hurt people or property.