JAMB English Language 2002 Past Questions & Answers

If our thoughts is to be clear and we are to succeed in communicating it to other people, we must have some method of fixing the meaning of the words we use. When we use a word whose meaning is not certain, we may well be asked to define it. There is a usual traditional device for doing this by indicating the class to which whatever is indicated by the term belongs and also other particular property which distinguishes it from all other members of the same class. Thus we may define a whale as a ‘marine animal that spouts’. ‘Marine animals’ in this definition indicates the general class to which the whale belongs and ‘spouts’ indicates the particular property that distinguishes whales from other such marine animals as fishes, seals, jellyfish and lobsters. In the same way, we can define an even number as a finite integer divisible by two or a democracy as a system of government in which the people themselves rule.

There are other ways, of course of indicating the meaning of words. We may for example, find it hard to make a suitable definition of the word ‘animal’, as we say that an animal is such a thing as a rabbit, dog fish or goat. Similarly, we may say that religion is such a system as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This way of indicating the meaning of a term by enumerating examples of what it includes is obviously of limited usefulness. If we indicate our use of the word ‘animal’ as above, our hearers might for example be doubtful whether a sea- anemone or a slug was to be included in the class of animals. It is however, a useful way of supplementing a definition if the definition itself id definite without being easily understandable. Failure of an attempt at definition to serve its purpose may result from giving as distinguishing mark one which either does not belong to all the things the definition id intended to include, or does belong to some members of the same general class which the definition is intended to exclude.

The question asks for the meaning of a phrase used within the passage. The first sentence directly links 'fixing the meaning of the words we use' with the goal of making our thoughts 'clear' and succeeding 'in communicating it to other people'. Option A correctly paraphrases this idea by connecting definition (the method of 'fixing') with clear communication.

Common mistake: Students might mistakenly choose option C because the word 'fixing' can mean 'repairing,' but the passage focuses on using definitions to prevent misunderstanding from happening in the first place, not to repair it afterwards.

If our thoughts is to be clear and we are to succeed in communicating it to other people, we must have some method of fixing the meaning of the words we use. When we use a word whose meaning is not certain, we may well be asked to define it. There is a usual traditional device for doing this by indicating the class to which whatever is indicated by the term belongs and also other particular property which distinguishes it from all other members of the same class. Thus we may define a whale as a ‘marine animal that spouts’. ‘Marine animals’ in this definition indicates the general class to which the whale belongs and ‘spouts’ indicates the particular property that distinguishes whales from other such marine animals as fishes, seals, jellyfish and lobsters. In the same way, we can define an even number as a finite integer divisible by two or a democracy as a system of government in which the people themselves rule.

There are other ways, of course of indicating the meaning of words. We may for example, find it hard to make a suitable definition of the word ‘animal’, as we say that an animal is such a thing as a rabbit, dog fish or goat. Similarly, we may say that religion is such a system as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This way of indicating the meaning of a term by enumerating examples of what it includes is obviously of limited usefulness. If we indicate our use of the word ‘animal’ as above, our hearers might for example be doubtful whether a sea- anemone or a slug was to be included in the class of animals. It is however, a useful way of supplementing a definition if the definition itself id definite without being easily understandable. Failure of an attempt at definition to serve its purpose may result from giving as distinguishing mark one which either does not belong to all the things the definition id intended to include, or does belong to some members of the same general class which the definition is intended to exclude.

The question asks for the best summary of the approaches to definition discussed in the passage. The passage explains two methods: first, defining by class and specific property ('general and specific features'), and second, defining by listing examples. Option D is the only choice that correctly includes both methods, making it the most complete summary of the entire text.

Common mistake: Students often mistakenly choose option A because it correctly describes the first method mentioned in the passage, but it is an incomplete summary as it fails to include the second method of using examples.

If our thoughts is to be clear and we are to succeed in communicating it to other people, we must have some method of fixing the meaning of the words we use. When we use a word whose meaning is not certain, we may well be asked to define it. There is a usual traditional device for doing this by indicating the class to which whatever is indicated by the term belongs and also other particular property which distinguishes it from all other members of the same class. Thus we may define a whale as a ‘marine animal that spouts’. ‘Marine animals’ in this definition indicates the general class to which the whale belongs and ‘spouts’ indicates the particular property that distinguishes whales from other such marine animals as fishes, seals, jellyfish and lobsters. In the same way, we can define an even number as a finite integer divisible by two or a democracy as a system of government in which the people themselves rule.

There are other ways, of course of indicating the meaning of words. We may for example, find it hard to make a suitable definition of the word ‘animal’, as we say that an animal is such a thing as a rabbit, dog fish or goat. Similarly, we may say that religion is such a system as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This way of indicating the meaning of a term by enumerating examples of what it includes is obviously of limited usefulness. If we indicate our use of the word ‘animal’ as above, our hearers might for example be doubtful whether a sea- anemone or a slug was to be included in the class of animals. It is however, a useful way of supplementing a definition if the definition itself id definite without being easily understandable. Failure of an attempt at definition to serve its purpose may result from giving as distinguishing mark one which either does not belong to all the things the definition id intended to include, or does belong to some members of the same general class which the definition is intended to exclude.

The expression 'may well be asked' is an idiom used to show that something is very likely or probable. In the context of the passage, it means that if your words are unclear, it is a very possible and expected outcome that people will ask you to define them. Option D, 'it is quite likely that we will be asked,' correctly captures this sense of high probability.

Common mistake: Students often mistake the high probability in 'may well be' for absolute certainty, leading them to incorrectly choose option A which suggests it's impossible to avoid.

If our thoughts is to be clear and we are to succeed in communicating it to other people, we must have some method of fixing the meaning of the words we use. When we use a word whose meaning is not certain, we may well be asked to define it. There is a usual traditional device for doing this by indicating the class to which whatever is indicated by the term belongs and also other particular property which distinguishes it from all other members of the same class. Thus we may define a whale as a ‘marine animal that spouts’. ‘Marine animals’ in this definition indicates the general class to which the whale belongs and ‘spouts’ indicates the particular property that distinguishes whales from other such marine animals as fishes, seals, jellyfish and lobsters. In the same way, we can define an even number as a finite integer divisible by two or a democracy as a system of government in which the people themselves rule.

There are other ways, of course of indicating the meaning of words. We may for example, find it hard to make a suitable definition of the word ‘animal’, as we say that an animal is such a thing as a rabbit, dog fish or goat. Similarly, we may say that religion is such a system as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This way of indicating the meaning of a term by enumerating examples of what it includes is obviously of limited usefulness. If we indicate our use of the word ‘animal’ as above, our hearers might for example be doubtful whether a sea- anemone or a slug was to be included in the class of animals. It is however, a useful way of supplementing a definition if the definition itself id definite without being easily understandable. Failure of an attempt at definition to serve its purpose may result from giving as distinguishing mark one which either does not belong to all the things the definition id intended to include, or does belong to some members of the same general class which the definition is intended to exclude.

This question tests your ability to understand the main conclusion of the passage. The passage starts by explaining that defining words is very important ('invaluable') for successful communication. It then discusses the problems and limitations of different definition methods, showing that creating a good definition is not easy ('difficult to achieve'). Therefore, option B is the best statement that can be deduced from the entire text.

Common mistake: Students might wrongly choose option D because the passage mentions a 'traditional' method and 'other ways,' but it never uses the word 'modern' or suggests the other methods are new.

If our thoughts is to be clear and we are to succeed in communicating it to other people, we must have some method of fixing the meaning of the words we use. When we use a word whose meaning is not certain, we may well be asked to define it. There is a usual traditional device for doing this by indicating the class to which whatever is indicated by the term belongs and also other particular property which distinguishes it from all other members of the same class. Thus we may define a whale as a ‘marine animal that spouts’. ‘Marine animals’ in this definition indicates the general class to which the whale belongs and ‘spouts’ indicates the particular property that distinguishes whales from other such marine animals as fishes, seals, jellyfish and lobsters. In the same way, we can define an even number as a finite integer divisible by two or a democracy as a system of government in which the people themselves rule.

There are other ways, of course of indicating the meaning of words. We may for example, find it hard to make a suitable definition of the word ‘animal’, as we say that an animal is such a thing as a rabbit, dog fish or goat. Similarly, we may say that religion is such a system as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. This way of indicating the meaning of a term by enumerating examples of what it includes is obviously of limited usefulness. If we indicate our use of the word ‘animal’ as above, our hearers might for example be doubtful whether a sea- anemone or a slug was to be included in the class of animals. It is however, a useful way of supplementing a definition if the definition itself id definite without being easily understandable. Failure of an attempt at definition to serve its purpose may result from giving as distinguishing mark one which either does not belong to all the things the definition id intended to include, or does belong to some members of the same general class which the definition is intended to exclude.

The question asks for a disadvantage of defining by listing examples, as described in the passage. The passage states this method has 'limited usefulness' because the hearer might be 'doubtful whether a sea-anemone or a slug was to be included'. This shows that the list of examples is not complete or 'all-inclusive', which directly supports option C.

Common mistake: Students might be tempted by option D, but the passage's main point is the general incompleteness of the list (not being 'all-inclusive'), rather than specifically focusing on whether the members left out are 'important'.

Those who have been following the argument for and against the deregulation of the oil industry in Nigeria may have got the impression that deregulation connotes lack of control or indifference on the part of the government. But there is nothing so far from official quarters to suggest that deregulation will cause the government to relinquish its control of the oil industry because the absence of direct control does not mean that it will surrender all its rights to the entrepreneurs who may want to participate in the industry. Yet the opposition expressed so far against stems from the fear that the government would leave Nigerians at the mercy of a heartless cartel who would command the heights of the oil industry and cause pump price of fuel to rise above the means of most Nigerians.

As a result of such fears, many Nigerians have become resentful of deregulation and in fact the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has threatened to ‘deregulate’ the government if it should go ahead with the deregulation plan. But Nigerians have not fared any better with the economy totally in government control. Until recently, the most important sectors of the economy were in the hands of the government. Today, the deregulation of some of these sectors has broken its monopoly and introduced healthy competition to make a little easier for Nigerians. A good example is the breaking of the stifling monopoly of Nigeria Airways. Today, the traveller is king at the domestic airports as opposed to the struggle that air travels used to be under Nigeria Airways monopoly. Before, it was almost easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for travellers to board a plane.

Following from this, the apostles of deregulation rightly heap all the blame for the problems associated with petroleum products distribution in this country squarely on the government, which owns all the refineries and which sells fuel to local consumers through its agency, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). In the same way, the government argues that if the current NNPC monopoly were broken with the introduction of entrepreneurs to the refining and sale of petroleum products in the country, the Nigerian people would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices for petroleum products in this country, the deregulation of the oil sector should bring some relief to the people by ensuring that wastage, corruption and inefficiency are reduced to the minimum. Consumers will also have the last laugh because competition will result in the availability of the products at reasonable prices. This appears to be the sense in deregulation.

The question asks you to find the statement that best summarises the arguments of those who support deregulation. The passage argues that introducing competition into the oil industry will break the government's monopoly, reduce inefficiency, and ultimately benefit the Nigerian people with available products at reasonable prices. Option C correctly captures this main point that competition will be beneficial to Nigerians.

Common mistake: Students might mistakenly choose option D, as the passage does advocate for competition, but it is an incomplete summary because it omits the key outcome that this competition will be beneficial to Nigerians, which is the central point of the argument.

Those who have been following the argument for and against the deregulation of the oil industry in Nigeria may have got the impression that deregulation connotes lack of control or indifference on the part of the government. But there is nothing so far from official quarters to suggest that deregulation will cause the government to relinquish its control of the oil industry because the absence of direct control does not mean that it will surrender all its rights to the entrepreneurs who may want to participate in the industry. Yet the opposition expressed so far against stems from the fear that the government would leave Nigerians at the mercy of a heartless cartel who would command the heights of the oil industry and cause pump price of fuel to rise above the means of most Nigerians.

As a result of such fears, many Nigerians have become resentful of deregulation and in fact the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has threatened to ‘deregulate’ the government if it should go ahead with the deregulation plan. But Nigerians have not fared any better with the economy totally in government control. Until recently, the most important sectors of the economy were in the hands of the government. Today, the deregulation of some of these sectors has broken its monopoly and introduced healthy competition to make a little easier for Nigerians. A good example is the breaking of the stifling monopoly of Nigeria Airways. Today, the traveller is king at the domestic airports as opposed to the struggle that air travels used to be under Nigeria Airways monopoly. Before, it was almost easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for travellers to board a plane.

Following from this, the apostles of deregulation rightly heap all the blame for the problems associated with petroleum products distribution in this country squarely on the government, which owns all the refineries and which sells fuel to local consumers through its agency, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). In the same way, the government argues that if the current NNPC monopoly were broken with the introduction of entrepreneurs to the refining and sale of petroleum products in the country, the Nigerian people would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices for petroleum products in this country, the deregulation of the oil sector should bring some relief to the people by ensuring that wastage, corruption and inefficiency are reduced to the minimum. Consumers will also have the last laugh because competition will result in the availability of the products at reasonable prices. This appears to be the sense in deregulation.

The question requires you to draw a logical conclusion based on the information given in the entire passage. The passage explicitly states that deregulation does not mean the government will lose all its power, saying 'the absence of direct control does not mean that it will surrender all its rights'. This directly supports the idea that the government can still exert its influence, making option D the correct conclusion.

Common mistake: Students may mistakenly choose option A because the passage presents deregulation in a positive light, but they fail to notice the extreme word 'all', which makes the statement an overgeneralization not supported by the text.

Those who have been following the argument for and against the deregulation of the oil industry in Nigeria may have got the impression that deregulation connotes lack of control or indifference on the part of the government. But there is nothing so far from official quarters to suggest that deregulation will cause the government to relinquish its control of the oil industry because the absence of direct control does not mean that it will surrender all its rights to the entrepreneurs who may want to participate in the industry. Yet the opposition expressed so far against stems from the fear that the government would leave Nigerians at the mercy of a heartless cartel who would command the heights of the oil industry and cause pump price of fuel to rise above the means of most Nigerians.

As a result of such fears, many Nigerians have become resentful of deregulation and in fact the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has threatened to ‘deregulate’ the government if it should go ahead with the deregulation plan. But Nigerians have not fared any better with the economy totally in government control. Until recently, the most important sectors of the economy were in the hands of the government. Today, the deregulation of some of these sectors has broken its monopoly and introduced healthy competition to make a little easier for Nigerians. A good example is the breaking of the stifling monopoly of Nigeria Airways. Today, the traveller is king at the domestic airports as opposed to the struggle that air travels used to be under Nigeria Airways monopoly. Before, it was almost easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for travellers to board a plane.

Following from this, the apostles of deregulation rightly heap all the blame for the problems associated with petroleum products distribution in this country squarely on the government, which owns all the refineries and which sells fuel to local consumers through its agency, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). In the same way, the government argues that if the current NNPC monopoly were broken with the introduction of entrepreneurs to the refining and sale of petroleum products in the country, the Nigerian people would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices for petroleum products in this country, the deregulation of the oil sector should bring some relief to the people by ensuring that wastage, corruption and inefficiency are reduced to the minimum. Consumers will also have the last laugh because competition will result in the availability of the products at reasonable prices. This appears to be the sense in deregulation.

This question requires you to find the main purpose or central idea of the entire passage. Although the text mentions the arguments against deregulation, it spends more time providing reasons and examples (like the airline industry) to support it. The author's goal is to convince the reader that deregulation is a good idea, which is what 'making a case' means.

Common mistake: Students may be tempted to choose option A, 'the advantage of a deregulated economy', but option B is more accurate because the passage is structured as a persuasive argument rather than just a list of advantages.

Those who have been following the argument for and against the deregulation of the oil industry in Nigeria may have got the impression that deregulation connotes lack of control or indifference on the part of the government. But there is nothing so far from official quarters to suggest that deregulation will cause the government to relinquish its control of the oil industry because the absence of direct control does not mean that it will surrender all its rights to the entrepreneurs who may want to participate in the industry. Yet the opposition expressed so far against stems from the fear that the government would leave Nigerians at the mercy of a heartless cartel who would command the heights of the oil industry and cause pump price of fuel to rise above the means of most Nigerians.

As a result of such fears, many Nigerians have become resentful of deregulation and in fact the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has threatened to ‘deregulate’ the government if it should go ahead with the deregulation plan. But Nigerians have not fared any better with the economy totally in government control. Until recently, the most important sectors of the economy were in the hands of the government. Today, the deregulation of some of these sectors has broken its monopoly and introduced healthy competition to make a little easier for Nigerians. A good example is the breaking of the stifling monopoly of Nigeria Airways. Today, the traveller is king at the domestic airports as opposed to the struggle that air travels used to be under Nigeria Airways monopoly. Before, it was almost easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for travellers to board a plane.

Following from this, the apostles of deregulation rightly heap all the blame for the problems associated with petroleum products distribution in this country squarely on the government, which owns all the refineries and which sells fuel to local consumers through its agency, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). In the same way, the government argues that if the current NNPC monopoly were broken with the introduction of entrepreneurs to the refining and sale of petroleum products in the country, the Nigerian people would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices for petroleum products in this country, the deregulation of the oil sector should bring some relief to the people by ensuring that wastage, corruption and inefficiency are reduced to the minimum. Consumers will also have the last laugh because competition will result in the availability of the products at reasonable prices. This appears to be the sense in deregulation.

This question tests your ability to understand the information presented in the passage. The passage discusses arguments 'for and against' deregulation and mentions 'apostles of deregulation' who support the idea. This shows that while some people oppose the plan, others support it, which means the opposition is not unanimous (i.e., not everyone is against it), making option C correct.

Common mistake: Students might wrongly choose option A because the passage mentions the NLC's threat, but it does not state that the threat was successful in stopping the government.

Those who have been following the argument for and against the deregulation of the oil industry in Nigeria may have got the impression that deregulation connotes lack of control or indifference on the part of the government. But there is nothing so far from official quarters to suggest that deregulation will cause the government to relinquish its control of the oil industry because the absence of direct control does not mean that it will surrender all its rights to the entrepreneurs who may want to participate in the industry. Yet the opposition expressed so far against stems from the fear that the government would leave Nigerians at the mercy of a heartless cartel who would command the heights of the oil industry and cause pump price of fuel to rise above the means of most Nigerians.

As a result of such fears, many Nigerians have become resentful of deregulation and in fact the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has threatened to ‘deregulate’ the government if it should go ahead with the deregulation plan. But Nigerians have not fared any better with the economy totally in government control. Until recently, the most important sectors of the economy were in the hands of the government. Today, the deregulation of some of these sectors has broken its monopoly and introduced healthy competition to make a little easier for Nigerians. A good example is the breaking of the stifling monopoly of Nigeria Airways. Today, the traveller is king at the domestic airports as opposed to the struggle that air travels used to be under Nigeria Airways monopoly. Before, it was almost easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for travellers to board a plane.

Following from this, the apostles of deregulation rightly heap all the blame for the problems associated with petroleum products distribution in this country squarely on the government, which owns all the refineries and which sells fuel to local consumers through its agency, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). In the same way, the government argues that if the current NNPC monopoly were broken with the introduction of entrepreneurs to the refining and sale of petroleum products in the country, the Nigerian people would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices would be all the better for it. It stands to reason that once the government continues to fix maximum prices for petroleum products in this country, the deregulation of the oil sector should bring some relief to the people by ensuring that wastage, corruption and inefficiency are reduced to the minimum. Consumers will also have the last laugh because competition will result in the availability of the products at reasonable prices. This appears to be the sense in deregulation.

The question asks you to find the writer's main suggestion in the passage. The writer mentions the public's anxiety and fear of deregulation but then spends the rest of the passage arguing against these fears. By using the airline industry as a positive example and stating that competition will bring relief, the writer suggests that the anxiety is unnecessary or 'groundless'.

Common mistake: Students might wrongly choose option C, but the passage directly states that deregulation does not mean the government will 'surrender all its rights' or stop having control.