Question 1
Answer: C
In looking for the main argument, we must discard any peripheral lines of reasoning or sub-points.
You may be tempted, from the introductory phrase: "There is, however, reason behind the convolution, in the form of a consistent underlying idea of reasonable foreseeability" to answer D: "The underlying principles of causation are sound". This is certainly true as we are told that causation is based on reasonable foreseeability. However, in telling us that causation has a consistent underlying principle, a broader or more important argument follows therefrom, namely that the law of causation as a whole must be principled. The point about underlying principles only serves as a line of reasoning justifying causation as a whole.
Therefore, the answer is C: "The law of causation is principled"
Question 2
Answer: B
The answer is straightforwardly provided with the line: "In this context, foreseeability is based on personal autonomy; that people have the capacity to make voluntary decisions about their actions". The answer is therefore B.
Question 3
Answer: A
The author explains the theory behind the foreseeability test in the preceding paragraph, so it certainly makes sense that in the next paragraph, the author might use a case to elaborate on how the test applies in practice (A).
Using the more concrete method of elimination: B cannot be right as the author never says that the case was wrong or that it misapplied the test, and C cannot be right as the case does not present any point of contention with the author's view.
Although the case is an example of a victim acting reasonably, the author does not intend this to illustrate hoe victims might or should react, so D is incorrect.
Finally, although E is true (the chain of causation was not broken in the case), the author could just as easily have explained the test using a case where the chain was broken, so this doesn't seem to be the main purpose of using the case.
Question 4
Answer: E
If we take the following statement from the text, both A and B must be wrong: "The term ‘free and informed’ suggests that the third-party intervention might be independent from the accused’s act which would make it reasonably unforeseeable". As it is suggested that the intervention only "might" be independent, it will not always be independent, "never not be" (A) is incorrect.
Equally, the intervention will be independent some of the time, so B ("never be independent") doesn't work. For the same reason, D ("never be reasonably unforeseeable") is incorrect. C is patently incorrect - a free an informed act is said to often be reasonably unforeseeable, so the two are connected.
For similar reasons to A, E must be correct - a free and informed act will sometimes ("might") be reasonably foreseeable, and sometimes reasonably unforeseeable.