Q1-
A is wrong, the passage does not say any such thing.
B is also wrong.
The passage does not discuss pros and cons,C is wrong.
Para 3 disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act (Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine). D is correct
E is wrong.

Q2-
A,C,D,E are completely irrelevant as per the context of the passage.
B is the answer

Q3-
Ans is B (this question is quite similar to Q1)
_________________

Skywalker18 , this question is tricky.
We have to discern the author's point of view, but that POV appears to be split between the very general and the very specific.

Almost always, if an author makes a sweeping claim that (s)he discusses
mostly in the context of a single example, the specific context is much more important
than the sweeping claim.

With respect to the primary purpose of a passage, what the author declares is important, but what the author delivers is more important.

The author commits the fallacy of "hasty generalization," in which
too much is extrapolated and generalized from too small a sample or example.

• The "all research" in option (E) is too strong
-- two sentences that seem to support (E) are followed or preceded by discussion only of specific N.I.H. health research

This sentence
Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it.
(1) comes after three paragraphs that discuss N.I.H. research published in medical journals
(2) is followed by a specific example from one of the N.I.H. campuses

This sentence
It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.
(1) refers to one policy of the N.I.H. on the Bethesda, MD, campus.

--In order for (E) to sustain its own claim and therefore to be better than (D),
the author should mention other kinds of publicly funded research,
especially because now we know that NOT all publicly funded research in other areas is open source.
The author has taken on a policy question well beyond health research.
-- Examples could include publicly funded research in poverty prevention, physical science (not health-based), or education.

• the passage supports verbs in (D) better than the verb in (E)
-- In primary purpose questions, look carefully at the verbs and adjectives.
(E) says "advocate" [for all XYZ to be open source].
(D) says "discuss and disprove" [a specific subject and claims made about that subject by specific people]

-- Most of the text in the passage supports the verbs in (D) rather than the verb in (E)
Paragraph 1: Every sentence except the first one discusses the content of Research Works Act

Paragraph 2: Every sentence discusses the position of major backers of the bill
"Publishers such as A, B, and C, who are backing the bill, argue that ..."
"Furthermore, they claim that . . ."

Paragraph 3: Every sentence is aimed at disproving content in paragraph 2.
"But in fact, these journals receive billions . . . "
"Moreover, even the peer review process[/highlight] is funded by public funds."

(4) As does paragraph 1, paragraph 4 appears to contain conflicting purposes.
All of the content, though, arguably is a continuation of the argument about the bill.
Worse, the only specific content in paragraph 4 refers to the intellectual property
of one N.I.H. campus in which precedent has been set.

• Final analysis: (D) has more support from the passage
Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 do "discuss and disprove" the matters described in (D)

Almost none of the content actually supports option (E).
A couple of assertions in the passage may make it seem as if "all publicly funded research"
is the author's target, but those assertions are not supported.

If the author truly wants to advocate that all publicly funded research be open source,
(s)he ought to talk about more than one narrow area and one specific bill.

Hope that helps.
_________________