this quiz lies big time, its not good

An omission is not sufficient for the actus reus of murder!!!!

The leading case for oblique intention is R v Woollin, R v Nedrick came 13 years before, and even then the principle from Nedrick is virtually certain consequences not a natural consequence. 

AG reference 1994 determined that a foetus is not a person in being so the defendant would NOTbe liable if the foetus died as a result of the injuries caused by the defendant

Sorry kid but omission is sufficient for murder in certain circumstances, see R v Gibbins and Proctor, although this is a recent development. Murder requires the unlawful killing of a Reasonable Person in Being...etc. it says nothing about an act! If you intentionally starve a child who cannot feed themselves, then this is intention to kill, and so also satisfies the MR! You seriously think the law would let child killers who starve their children (omission to feed) to get away with it? I don't think so! Another case was on the news not so long ago as well actually! Use google before criticising people's hard work! 

Apart from that I agree with you! Except Woollin and Nedrick go together to discuss virtual certainty. Although Woollin is more recent I would say Nedrick was just as valid regarding discussing virtual certainty. 

However, this quiz is obviously out of date because the Homicide Act, particularly s.3 was repealed in 2009 and replaced with s.54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act! And so there are bound to be differences in the law then and the law you have learned now! 

CHILL OUT :)