Study and practice English Language past questions with answers and detailed explanations. Then test your knowledge using our interactive CBT practice platform and prepare confidently for your upcoming examinations.
Create and set up a CBT environment with your preferred subjects.
Practice JAMB CBT with real UTME past questions in CBT format.
CB-WASSCE styled past question practice.
SSCE & GCE styled past question practice.
Select the correct option for the space numbered 20 in the above passage
Select the correct option for the space numbered 19 in the above passage
Select the correct option for the space numbered 18 in the above passage
Select the correct option for the space numbered 17 in the above passage
Select the correct option for the space numbered 16 in the above passage
The writer says that young people are optimistic in their dealings with people because they are
Young men have strong passions and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show the absence of self-control. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last but quickly over; their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted and are like sick people’s attacks of hunger and thirst. They are hot-tempered and quick-tempered and apt to give way to their anger; bad temper often gets the better of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated. While they love honour, they love victory still more, for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this. They love both more than they love money which indeed they love very little not having yet learnt what it means to be without it. They look at the good side rather than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness. They trust others readily because they have not yet been cheated. They are sanguine; nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine and besides that, they have as yet met with few disappointments. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation for youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it: on the first day of one’s life, one has nothing at all to remember and can only look forward. They are easily cheated owing to the sanguine disposition just mentioned. Their hot tempers and hopeful dispositions make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear and the hopeful disposition creates confidence. We cannot feel fear so long as we are feeling angry, and any expectation of good makes us confident.
According to the passage, young men are
Young men have strong passions and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show the absence of self-control. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last but quickly over; their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted and are like sick people’s attacks of hunger and thirst. They are hot-tempered and quick-tempered and apt to give way to their anger; bad temper often gets the better of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated. While they love honour, they love victory still more, for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this. They love both more than they love money which indeed they love very little not having yet learnt what it means to be without it. They look at the good side rather than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness. They trust others readily because they have not yet been cheated. They are sanguine; nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine and besides that, they have as yet met with few disappointments. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation for youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it: on the first day of one’s life, one has nothing at all to remember and can only look forward. They are easily cheated owing to the sanguine disposition just mentioned. Their hot tempers and hopeful dispositions make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear and the hopeful disposition creates confidence. We cannot feel fear so long as we are feeling angry, and any expectation of good makes us confident.
The analogy between young men and sick people is that
Young men have strong passions and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show the absence of self-control. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last but quickly over; their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted and are like sick people’s attacks of hunger and thirst. They are hot-tempered and quick-tempered and apt to give way to their anger; bad temper often gets the better of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated. While they love honour, they love victory still more, for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this. They love both more than they love money which indeed they love very little not having yet learnt what it means to be without it. They look at the good side rather than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness. They trust others readily because they have not yet been cheated. They are sanguine; nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine and besides that, they have as yet met with few disappointments. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation for youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it: on the first day of one’s life, one has nothing at all to remember and can only look forward. They are easily cheated owing to the sanguine disposition just mentioned. Their hot tempers and hopeful dispositions make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear and the hopeful disposition creates confidence. We cannot feel fear so long as we are feeling angry, and any expectation of good makes us confident.
The statement 'nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine', as used in the text means
Young men have strong passions and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show the absence of self-control. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last but quickly over; their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted and are like sick people’s attacks of hunger and thirst. They are hot-tempered and quick-tempered and apt to give way to their anger; bad temper often gets the better of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated. While they love honour, they love victory still more, for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this. They love both more than they love money which indeed they love very little not having yet learnt what it means to be without it. They look at the good side rather than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness. They trust others readily because they have not yet been cheated. They are sanguine; nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine and besides that, they have as yet met with few disappointments. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation for youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it: on the first day of one’s life, one has nothing at all to remember and can only look forward. They are easily cheated owing to the sanguine disposition just mentioned. Their hot tempers and hopeful dispositions make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear and the hopeful disposition creates confidence. We cannot feel fear so long as we are feeling angry, and any expectation of good makes us confident.
The expression ''not in memory but in expectation'' as used in the passage implies
Young men have strong passions and tend to gratify them indiscriminately. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by which they are most swayed and in which they show the absence of self-control. They are changeable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last but quickly over; their impulses are keen but not deep-rooted and are like sick people’s attacks of hunger and thirst. They are hot-tempered and quick-tempered and apt to give way to their anger; bad temper often gets the better of them, for owing to their love of honour they cannot bear being slighted, and are indignant if they imagine themselves unfairly treated. While they love honour, they love victory still more, for youth is eager for superiority over others, and victory is one form of this. They love both more than they love money which indeed they love very little not having yet learnt what it means to be without it. They look at the good side rather than the bad, not having yet witnessed many instances of wickedness. They trust others readily because they have not yet been cheated. They are sanguine; nature warms their blood as though with excess of wine and besides that, they have as yet met with few disappointments. Their lives are mainly spent not in memory but in expectation for youth has a long future before it and a short past behind it: on the first day of one’s life, one has nothing at all to remember and can only look forward. They are easily cheated owing to the sanguine disposition just mentioned. Their hot tempers and hopeful dispositions make them more courageous than older men are; the hot temper prevents fear and the hopeful disposition creates confidence. We cannot feel fear so long as we are feeling angry, and any expectation of good makes us confident.
The Cirencester volunteers kept record of their colds through
You would think that the 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 could 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 salt-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 seven days. So nearly one-fiftieth of our lives is spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out not to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to colds 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 a 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
You would think that the 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 could 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 salt-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 seven days. So nearly one-fiftieth of our lives is spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out not to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to colds 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 a 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 cold are
You would think that the 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 could 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 salt-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 seven days. So nearly one-fiftieth of our lives is spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out not to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to colds 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 a 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
You would think that the 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 could 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 salt-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 seven days. So nearly one-fiftieth of our lives is spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out not to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to colds 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 a 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?
You would think that the 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 could 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 salt-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 seven days. So nearly one-fiftieth of our lives is spent in more or less misery, coughing and sneezing. Some widely held beliefs about the common cold have turned out not to be true. It seems that old people are just as liable to colds 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 a 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.
In secretary Donna Shalala's view, the situation depicted by the statistics is
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 more 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 doubled 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 fantasised 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 effect. 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 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
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 more 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 doubled 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 fantasised 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 effect. 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 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
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 more 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 doubled 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 fantasised 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 effect. 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 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'?
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 more 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 doubled 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 fantasised 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 effect. 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 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
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 more 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 doubled 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 fantasised 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 effect. 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 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?