98 JAMB English Language 2000 questions with verified answers and worked explanations. Here are the first 10 — sign up free to practise the full paper.
Time was when boys used to point toy guns and say ‘Bang’. Now, they aim real guns and shoot one another. Nearly 4,200 teenagers were killed by firearms in 1990. Only motor vehicle accidents kill most teenagers than firearms and the firearms figures are rising. The chance that a black male between the ages of 15 and 19 will be killed by a gun has almost tripled since 1985 and almost double for white males, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics.
Who could disagree with Health and Human services secretary, Donna Shalala, when she pronounced these statistics ‘frightening and intolerable?’. In the shameful light of this ‘waste of young lives’ in Ms Shalala’s words, an often-asked question seems urgently due to be raised again. Would less violence on television, the surrounding environment for most children and young adults make violence in actual life less normal, less accepted, less horrifying?
It may be difficult to prove an exact correlation between the viewer of fantasized violence and the criminal who acts out violence after turning off the set. But if the premise of education is granted-that good models can influence the young-then it follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effects. This is the reasonable hypothesis held, by 80 per cent of the respondents to a recent Time Mirror [poll who think that violent entertainment is ‘harmful’ to the society. Witness enough mimed shootouts; see enough ‘corpses’ fall across the screen and the taking of a human life seems no big deal. Even if a simple causal relationship cannot be established between watching violence and acting it out, is not this numbed sensitivity reason enough for cutting back on the overkill in films and TV?
The writer uses 'numbed sensitivity' to refer to
The question asks for the meaning of the phrase 'numbed sensitivity' as used in the passage. 'Numbed' means to lose feeling, while 'sensitivity' is the ability to feel emotions. The passage explains that seeing too much violence makes people less shocked by it, so their ability to feel is weakened or 'deadened'. Therefore, the phrase means the 'deadening of the capacity to feel', which directly matches option A.
Common mistake: Students might wrongly choose option D, 'unreasonable violence', because it is a major topic in the passage, but the question is asking for the meaning of the phrase that describes the *effect* on the viewer, not the cause.
Time was when boys used to point toy guns and say ‘Bang’. Now, they aim real guns and shoot one another. Nearly 4,200 teenagers were killed by firearms in 1990. Only motor vehicle accidents kill most teenagers than firearms and the firearms figures are rising. The chance that a black male between the ages of 15 and 19 will be killed by a gun has almost tripled since 1985 and almost double for white males, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics.
Who could disagree with Health and Human services secretary, Donna Shalala, when she pronounced these statistics ‘frightening and intolerable?’. In the shameful light of this ‘waste of young lives’ in Ms Shalala’s words, an often-asked question seems urgently due to be raised again. Would less violence on television, the surrounding environment for most children and young adults make violence in actual life less normal, less accepted, less horrifying?
It may be difficult to prove an exact correlation between the viewer of fantasized violence and the criminal who acts out violence after turning off the set. But if the premise of education is granted-that good models can influence the young-then it follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effects. This is the reasonable hypothesis held, by 80 per cent of the respondents to a recent Time Mirror [poll who think that violent entertainment is ‘harmful’ to the society. Witness enough mimed shootouts; see enough ‘corpses’ fall across the screen and the taking of a human life seems no big deal. Even if a simple causal relationship cannot be established between watching violence and acting it out, is not this numbed sensitivity reason enough for cutting back on the overkill in films and TV?
What will actually be proved 'if the premise of education is granted'?
The question asks what is proved if we accept the 'premise of education'. The passage defines this premise as 'good models can influence the young'. It then states that if this is true, 'it follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effect'. The passage uses violence on television as an example of a 'bad model', so the harmful effect would be encouraging real-life violence, making option B the correct conclusion.
Common mistake: Students might mistakenly choose option C because the phrase 'good models can influence the young' is stated directly in the passage, but this is the premise itself, not the conclusion that follows from it.
Time was when boys used to point toy guns and say ‘Bang’. Now, they aim real guns and shoot one another. Nearly 4,200 teenagers were killed by firearms in 1990. Only motor vehicle accidents kill most teenagers than firearms and the firearms figures are rising. The chance that a black male between the ages of 15 and 19 will be killed by a gun has almost tripled since 1985 and almost double for white males, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics.
Who could disagree with Health and Human services secretary, Donna Shalala, when she pronounced these statistics ‘frightening and intolerable?’. In the shameful light of this ‘waste of young lives’ in Ms Shalala’s words, an often-asked question seems urgently due to be raised again. Would less violence on television, the surrounding environment for most children and young adults make violence in actual life less normal, less accepted, less horrifying?
It may be difficult to prove an exact correlation between the viewer of fantasized violence and the criminal who acts out violence after turning off the set. But if the premise of education is granted-that good models can influence the young-then it follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effects. This is the reasonable hypothesis held, by 80 per cent of the respondents to a recent Time Mirror [poll who think that violent entertainment is ‘harmful’ to the society. Witness enough mimed shootouts; see enough ‘corpses’ fall across the screen and the taking of a human life seems no big deal. Even if a simple causal relationship cannot be established between watching violence and acting it out, is not this numbed sensitivity reason enough for cutting back on the overkill in films and TV?
From the passage, it can be inferred that since 1985
The question asks you to make an inference, which means to draw a conclusion based on the information given. The passage starts by saying that boys now 'shoot one another' and later states that the chance of a young black male being killed by a gun has tripled. By combining these two facts, we can infer that the reason more are being killed is because more are involved in shooting each other.
Common mistake: Students may mistakenly choose option B because it is directly stated in the passage, but the question asks for an inference, which requires you to draw a conclusion rather than just repeat information.
Time was when boys used to point toy guns and say ‘Bang’. Now, they aim real guns and shoot one another. Nearly 4,200 teenagers were killed by firearms in 1990. Only motor vehicle accidents kill most teenagers than firearms and the firearms figures are rising. The chance that a black male between the ages of 15 and 19 will be killed by a gun has almost tripled since 1985 and almost double for white males, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics.
Who could disagree with Health and Human services secretary, Donna Shalala, when she pronounced these statistics ‘frightening and intolerable?’. In the shameful light of this ‘waste of young lives’ in Ms Shalala’s words, an often-asked question seems urgently due to be raised again. Would less violence on television, the surrounding environment for most children and young adults make violence in actual life less normal, less accepted, less horrifying?
It may be difficult to prove an exact correlation between the viewer of fantasized violence and the criminal who acts out violence after turning off the set. But if the premise of education is granted-that good models can influence the young-then it follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effects. This is the reasonable hypothesis held, by 80 per cent of the respondents to a recent Time Mirror [poll who think that violent entertainment is ‘harmful’ to the society. Witness enough mimed shootouts; see enough ‘corpses’ fall across the screen and the taking of a human life seems no big deal. Even if a simple causal relationship cannot be established between watching violence and acting it out, is not this numbed sensitivity reason enough for cutting back on the overkill in films and TV?
The writer says 'the firearms figure are rising' because
The question requires you to interpret the phrase 'the firearms figure are rising' based on the information in the passage. The passage first establishes that only motor vehicle accidents kill more teenagers than firearms. By then stating that the 'firearms figures are rising', the writer implies that this situation is changing, with firearm deaths increasing to the point where they now kill more teenagers than motor accidents.
Common mistake: Many students might choose option D because it is a literally true statement from the passage, but it is considered a general statement, whereas option A makes the specific comparison to motor vehicle accidents that the rising trend implies.
Time was when boys used to point toy guns and say ‘Bang’. Now, they aim real guns and shoot one another. Nearly 4,200 teenagers were killed by firearms in 1990. Only motor vehicle accidents kill most teenagers than firearms and the firearms figures are rising. The chance that a black male between the ages of 15 and 19 will be killed by a gun has almost tripled since 1985 and almost double for white males, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics.
Who could disagree with Health and Human services secretary, Donna Shalala, when she pronounced these statistics ‘frightening and intolerable?’. In the shameful light of this ‘waste of young lives’ in Ms Shalala’s words, an often-asked question seems urgently due to be raised again. Would less violence on television, the surrounding environment for most children and young adults make violence in actual life less normal, less accepted, less horrifying?
It may be difficult to prove an exact correlation between the viewer of fantasized violence and the criminal who acts out violence after turning off the set. But if the premise of education is granted-that good models can influence the young-then it follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effects. This is the reasonable hypothesis held, by 80 per cent of the respondents to a recent Time Mirror [poll who think that violent entertainment is ‘harmful’ to the society. Witness enough mimed shootouts; see enough ‘corpses’ fall across the screen and the taking of a human life seems no big deal. Even if a simple causal relationship cannot be established between watching violence and acting it out, is not this numbed sensitivity reason enough for cutting back on the overkill in films and TV?
In secretary Donna Shalala's view, the situation depicted by the statistics is
The passage directly quotes Donna Shalala describing the statistics as 'frightening and intolerable'. The question asks for her view, so you must find the option with the closest meaning. 'Frightening' means causing great fear, which is the same as 'alarming'. 'Intolerable' means something that cannot be accepted or endured, which is the same as 'unbearable'. Therefore, option C, 'alarming and unbearable', is the correct answer because it is the nearest in meaning to the words used in the passage.
Common mistake: Students might mistakenly choose option B because 'intimidating' is similar to 'frightening', but 'topical' does not mean the same as 'intolerable', making option C a more accurate and complete match.
You would think that common cold should be easy enough to study, but it is not as easy as it looks. Colds often seem to spread from one person to another, so it is often assumed that the cold must be infectious but there are some puzzling observations which do not fit with this theory. An investigator in Holland examined some eight thousand volunteers from different areas and came to the conclusion that in each group the colds all appeared at the same time-transfer of infection from case to case not account for that. Yet at the common cold research unit in Salisbury the infection theory has been tested out, two series of about two hundred people each were inoculated, one with salt water and the other with secretion from known cold victims. Only one of the sail- water group got a cold compared with seventy-three in the other group.
In the British Medical Journal the other day, there was a report of a meeting. ‘The common cold-fact and fancy’, at which one of the speakers reported a study of colds made in Cirencester over the last five years. Three hundred and fifty volunteers had kept diary records of their colds and on an average each had seven every year with an annual morbidity of seventy days. So nearly one-fifth of our lives are spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to cold as the young. Sailors in isolated weather ships have just as many colds while on board and not in contact with the outside world as when on shore. It is truism that common illnesses pose more problems than the rare. The rare disease is by comparison much easier to handle. There are not so many cases and all of them have been intensively studied. Someone has read up all the literature about the disease and published a digest of it. There will be more facts and fewer fancies.
Which of the following statements can be implied from the passage?
The question asks you to find a statement that can be implied from the passage. The passage states that 'Sailors in isolated weather ships have just as many colds while on board... as when on shore.' This suggests that a change in environment or location does not affect how often people get colds, leading to the inference that weather conditions (warm or cold) do not matter.
Common mistake: Students often choose option B because the passage mentions conflicting studies, but this overlooks the specific detail about sailors which is intended to show that external conditions are not a deciding factor.
You would think that common cold should be easy enough to study, but it is not as easy as it looks. Colds often seem to spread from one person to another, so it is often assumed that the cold must be infectious but there are some puzzling observations which do not fit with this theory. An investigator in Holland examined some eight thousand volunteers from different areas and came to the conclusion that in each group the colds all appeared at the same time-transfer of infection from case to case not account for that. Yet at the common cold research unit in Salisbury the infection theory has been tested out, two series of about two hundred people each were inoculated, one with salt water and the other with secretion from known cold victims. Only one of the sail- water group got a cold compared with seventy-three in the other group.
In the British Medical Journal the other day, there was a report of a meeting. ‘The common cold-fact and fancy’, at which one of the speakers reported a study of colds made in Cirencester over the last five years. Three hundred and fifty volunteers had kept diary records of their colds and on an average each had seven every year with an annual morbidity of seventy days. So nearly one-fifth of our lives are spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to cold as the young. Sailors in isolated weather ships have just as many colds while on board and not in contact with the outside world as when on shore. It is truism that common illnesses pose more problems than the rare. The rare disease is by comparison much easier to handle. There are not so many cases and all of them have been intensively studied. Someone has read up all the literature about the disease and published a digest of it. There will be more facts and fewer fancies.
A rare disease can be more easily dealt with than the common cold because
The question asks why a rare disease is easier to deal with than a common cold. The passage states in the last few sentences that rare diseases are 'intensively studied' and that literature is published about them, resulting in 'more facts and fewer fancies'. This directly shows that there is enough research to understand rare diseases, making option C the correct answer.
Common mistake: Students might mistakenly choose option A, assuming that the 'misery' of colds means experts are 'fed up', but the passage does not state this feeling of the experts at all.
You would think that common cold should be easy enough to study, but it is not as easy as it looks. Colds often seem to spread from one person to another, so it is often assumed that the cold must be infectious but there are some puzzling observations which do not fit with this theory. An investigator in Holland examined some eight thousand volunteers from different areas and came to the conclusion that in each group the colds all appeared at the same time-transfer of infection from case to case not account for that. Yet at the common cold research unit in Salisbury the infection theory has been tested out, two series of about two hundred people each were inoculated, one with salt water and the other with secretion from known cold victims. Only one of the sail- water group got a cold compared with seventy-three in the other group.
In the British Medical Journal the other day, there was a report of a meeting. ‘The common cold-fact and fancy’, at which one of the speakers reported a study of colds made in Cirencester over the last five years. Three hundred and fifty volunteers had kept diary records of their colds and on an average each had seven every year with an annual morbidity of seventy days. So nearly one-fifth of our lives are spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to cold as the young. Sailors in isolated weather ships have just as many colds while on board and not in contact with the outside world as when on shore. It is truism that common illnesses pose more problems than the rare. The rare disease is by comparison much easier to handle. There are not so many cases and all of them have been intensively studied. Someone has read up all the literature about the disease and published a digest of it. There will be more facts and fewer fancies.
According to the writer, some widely held beliefs about the common colds are
The question requires you to understand the writer's overall point about common beliefs regarding colds. The passage presents 'puzzling observations' that contradict the simple theory of infection, which is a widely held belief. The word 'fallacious' means false or based on a mistaken belief, which accurately describes the writer's view that many common ideas about colds are actually wrong.
Common mistake: Students might mistakenly choose 'inevitable' because the passage mentions the high frequency of colds, but the writer's main point is about the truthfulness of the beliefs, not whether getting a cold is unavoidable.
You would think that common cold should be easy enough to study, but it is not as easy as it looks. Colds often seem to spread from one person to another, so it is often assumed that the cold must be infectious but there are some puzzling observations which do not fit with this theory. An investigator in Holland examined some eight thousand volunteers from different areas and came to the conclusion that in each group the colds all appeared at the same time-transfer of infection from case to case not account for that. Yet at the common cold research unit in Salisbury the infection theory has been tested out, two series of about two hundred people each were inoculated, one with salt water and the other with secretion from known cold victims. Only one of the sail- water group got a cold compared with seventy-three in the other group.
In the British Medical Journal the other day, there was a report of a meeting. ‘The common cold-fact and fancy’, at which one of the speakers reported a study of colds made in Cirencester over the last five years. Three hundred and fifty volunteers had kept diary records of their colds and on an average each had seven every year with an annual morbidity of seventy days. So nearly one-fifth of our lives are spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to cold as the young. Sailors in isolated weather ships have just as many colds while on board and not in contact with the outside world as when on shore. It is truism that common illnesses pose more problems than the rare. The rare disease is by comparison much easier to handle. There are not so many cases and all of them have been intensively studied. Someone has read up all the literature about the disease and published a digest of it. There will be more facts and fewer fancies.
From the information in the passage, there is evidence
The correct option is B because the passage explicitly describes an experiment that supports the infection theory. In the study at the Salisbury research unit, 73 people who were given secretions from cold victims got a cold, while only one person who received salt water did. This result is strong evidence that the cold is infectious and can be transferred from person to person.
Common mistake: Students might mistakenly choose option A because the passage first mentions a study in Holland that seems to go against the infection theory, which can cause confusion if they do not read the entire passage carefully.
You would think that common cold should be easy enough to study, but it is not as easy as it looks. Colds often seem to spread from one person to another, so it is often assumed that the cold must be infectious but there are some puzzling observations which do not fit with this theory. An investigator in Holland examined some eight thousand volunteers from different areas and came to the conclusion that in each group the colds all appeared at the same time-transfer of infection from case to case not account for that. Yet at the common cold research unit in Salisbury the infection theory has been tested out, two series of about two hundred people each were inoculated, one with salt water and the other with secretion from known cold victims. Only one of the sail- water group got a cold compared with seventy-three in the other group.
In the British Medical Journal the other day, there was a report of a meeting. ‘The common cold-fact and fancy’, at which one of the speakers reported a study of colds made in Cirencester over the last five years. Three hundred and fifty volunteers had kept diary records of their colds and on an average each had seven every year with an annual morbidity of seventy days. So nearly one-fifth of our lives are spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to cold as the young. Sailors in isolated weather ships have just as many colds while on board and not in contact with the outside world as when on shore. It is truism that common illnesses pose more problems than the rare. The rare disease is by comparison much easier to handle. There are not so many cases and all of them have been intensively studied. Someone has read up all the literature about the disease and published a digest of it. There will be more facts and fewer fancies.
The cirencester volunteers kept record of their colds through
This question tests your ability to find specific information directly from the reading passage. The passage states that 'Three hundred and fifty volunteers had kept diary records of their colds'. The term 'diary records' is the same as 'personal diaries', making option D the correct answer.
Common mistake: Students may wrongly select option A because 'the British Medical Journal' is mentioned in the passage, but it was the place where a report was published, not the tool the volunteers used for recording.
Sign up free to unlock every question in this paper — with the verified answer and Beta's worked explanation on each one. No card needed to begin.
Start free