Comprehension/Summary - Jamb English Language Past Questions and Answers

Question 136:

• JAMB 1981

  From time to time I hear someone say, ‘But Yoga comes from India, therefore is something “foreign” and I don’t see how we can make use of it’. Of course this is foolishness. It is like saying, ‘I don’t want to listen to the music of Bach because he was a German’, or it is like someone in India declaring, ‘We don’t want to use electricity, because Thomas Edison was an American’ Yoga is universal, it is a priceless gift from the East and its benefits are available to all of us who would accept them.
It is very tragic that many of us, not knowing the facts, have for many years confused Yogis (a person who practices ‘Yoga’ is a Yogi) with a certain class of people in India who are known a s Fakirs. Fakirs have gain extra ordinary control of their senses, but use this control to subject their bodies to abnormal conditions. For example, they sit on the famous ‘bed of nails’ stick pins and feats. They are generally persons of low mentality, and they perform these supernatural things for money, food, favours and so forth. These Fakirs should never be confused with Yogis nor do snake charmers or Indian rope trick practitioners have anything to do with Yoga. Yoga is a natural development for body and mind and a true Yogi will never permit anything harmful or unnatural to be done to his body or mind.
Finally, there is the question of ‘religion’. I am often asked, ‘Is Yoga a religion?’ My answer is, ‘Definitely not! For us, Yoga is a dynamic system of physical exercise and a practical and valuable philosophy to apply to everyday life. In short, Yoga is way of life and everyone, regardless of his religion, can benefit greatly from any6 one or all aspect of Yoga.




The writer dislikes Fakirs because

A. Fakirs have gained extraordinary control of thier senses
B. Fakirs are confused with Yogis
C. Fakirs subject their bodies to abnormal conditions, and perform supernatural feats for money
D. Fakirs do not practice Yoga
E. Being a Yogi himself, he is jealous f Fakirs

Question 137:

• JAMB 1981

this book consist of lectures given by me at Cambridge. Though they have been largely rewritten, I have kept a good deal of their original lecture-form, as being (I hope) rather less formal and less dogmatic. For to dogmatism, those who write on language seem, for some reason, particularly prone; and I should like to make clear at once that, if at times I have put my view strongly, I do not forget that such matters of taste must remain mere matters of opinion.
In addition I have included a good many specimen passages from various authors. Perhaps I have quoted too much. But a book on style without abundant examples seems to me as ineffectual as a book on art, or biology without abundant illustrations. Many of these passages are in French. That may be Gallomanian on my part and I must apologize if they trouble some readers. But some ability to read French prose does seem to me most desirable for anyone who would write well in English. I have tried to choose pieces not too difficult in syntax or vocabulary. And in these days less than ever can we afford to be better insular.




According to the author (in this preface) the book is

A. The original version of his Cambridge lectures
B. A revised version of his Cambridge lectutres
C. An imitation of his Cambridge lectures
D. A negation of his Cambridge lectures
E. An authentic version of his Cambridge lectures

Question 138:

• JAMB 1981

this book consist of lectures given by me at Cambridge. Though they have been largely rewritten, I have kept a good deal of their original lecture-form, as being (I hope) rather less formal and less dogmatic. For to dogmatism, those who write on language seem, for some reason, particularly prone; and I should like to make clear at once that, if at times I have put my view strongly, I do not forget that such matters of taste must remain mere matters of opinion.
In addition I have included a good many specimen passages from various authors. Perhaps I have quoted too much. But a book on style without abundant examples seems to me as ineffectual as a book on art, or biology without abundant illustrations. Many of these passages are in French. That may be Gallomanian on my part and I must apologize if they trouble some readers. But some ability to read French prose does seem to me most desirable for anyone who would write well in English. I have tried to choose pieces not too difficult in syntax or vocabulary. And in these days less than ever can we afford to be better insular.




the author says that writers on language are

A. Inclined to be dogmatic
B. Opposed to dogmatism
C. Unlikely to be dogmatic
D. Resolved to be dogmatic
E. Ready to be dogmatic

Question 139:

• JAMB 1981

this book consist of lectures given by me at Cambridge. Though they have been largely rewritten, I have kept a good deal of their original lecture-form, as being (I hope) rather less formal and less dogmatic. For to dogmatism, those who write on language seem, for some reason, particularly prone; and I should like to make clear at once that, if at times I have put my view strongly, I do not forget that such matters of taste must remain mere matters of opinion.
In addition I have included a good many specimen passages from various authors. Perhaps I have quoted too much. But a book on style without abundant examples seems to me as ineffectual as a book on art, or biology without abundant illustrations. Many of these passages are in French. That may be Gallomanian on my part and I must apologize if they trouble some readers. But some ability to read French prose does seem to me most desirable for anyone who would write well in English. I have tried to choose pieces not too difficult in syntax or vocabulary. And in these days less than ever can we afford to be better insular.




in the author's opinion, a book on style

A. Can do with few examples
B. Need not have any examples
C. Is a book on art
D. Will be intellectual with many examples
E. Will be ineffectual with insufficient examples

Question 140:

• JAMB 1981

this book consist of lectures given by me at Cambridge. Though they have been largely rewritten, I have kept a good deal of their original lecture-form, as being (I hope) rather less formal and less dogmatic. For to dogmatism, those who write on language seem, for some reason, particularly prone; and I should like to make clear at once that, if at times I have put my view strongly, I do not forget that such matters of taste must remain mere matters of opinion.
In addition I have included a good many specimen passages from various authors. Perhaps I have quoted too much. But a book on style without abundant examples seems to me as ineffectual as a book on art, or biology without abundant illustrations. Many of these passages are in French. That may be Gallomanian on my part and I must apologize if they trouble some readers. But some ability to read French prose does seem to me most desirable for anyone who would write well in English. I have tried to choose pieces not too difficult in syntax or vocabulary. And in these days less than ever can we afford to be better insular.




to write English well, the author says it is helpful to

A. To be able to write French farily well
B. To be able to read Frecnch fairly well
C. Know French thoroughly
D. Must never be insular
E. Do all of the above