2002 - JAMB English Past Questions and Answers - page 11

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  Recgnizing the need for objectivity in their work, the early report writers to develop a writing style which convey this attitude. They reasoned that the source of the subjective quality in a report is the human being. And they reasoned that objectivity is best attained by emphasizing the factual material of a report rather 5than the personalities involved. So they worked to remove the human being from their writing. Impersonal writing style was the result. By impersonal writing is meant writing in the third person-without I’s, we’s or you’s.

  In recent years, impersonal writing has been strenuously questioned by many writers. These writers point out that personal writing is more forceful and direct than is impersonal writing. They contend that writing which brings both reader and writer into the picture is more like conversation and therefore more interesting. And the answer to the point on objectivity when written in personal style as when in impersonal style. Frequently, they counter with the argument that impersonal writing leads to an overuse of passive voice and a generally dull writing style. This last argument however lacks substances. Impersonal writing can and should be interesting. Any dullness it may have is wholly the fault of the writer. As proof, one has only to look at the lovely styles used by the writers for newspapers, news magazines and journals. Most of this writing is impersonal and usually it is not dull.

  As in most cases of controversy, there is some merit to the arguments on both sides. There are situations in which personal writing is best. There are situations in which impersonal writing is best. And there are situations in which either style is appropriate. The writer must decide at the outset of his work which style is best for his own situation.

  Her decision should be based on the circumstances of each report situation. First, he should consider the expectations or desires of those for whom he is preparing the report. More than likely he will find a preference for impersonal style for like most human beings; businessman has been slow to break tradition. Next, the writer should consider the formality of the report situation. If the situation is informal, as when the report is really a personal communication of information between business associates, personal writing is appropriate. But if the situation is formal, as is case with most reports, the conventional impersonal style is best.

  Recgnizing the need for objectivity in their work, the early report writers to develop a writing style which convey this attitude. They reasoned that the source of the subjective quality in a report is the human being. And they reasoned that objectivity is best attained by emphasizing the factual material of a report rather 5than the personalities involved. So they worked to remove the human being from their writing. Impersonal writing style was the result. By impersonal writing is meant writing in the third person-without I’s, we’s or you’s.

  In recent years, impersonal writing has been strenuously questioned by many writers. These writers point out that personal writing is more forceful and direct than is impersonal writing. They contend that writing which brings both reader and writer into the picture is more like conversation and therefore more interesting. And the answer to the point on objectivity when written in personal style as when in impersonal style. Frequently, they counter with the argument that impersonal writing leads to an overuse of passive voice and a generally dull writing style. This last argument however lacks substances. Impersonal writing can and should be interesting. Any dullness it may have is wholly the fault of the writer. As proof, one has only to look at the lovely styles used by the writers for newspapers, news magazines and journals. Most of this writing is impersonal and usually it is not dull.

  As in most cases of controversy, there is some merit to the arguments on both sides. There are situations in which personal writing is best. There are situations in which impersonal writing is best. And there are situations in which either style is appropriate. The writer must decide at the outset of his work which style is best for his own situation.

  Her decision should be based on the circumstances of each report situation. First, he should consider the expectations or desires of those for whom he is preparing the report. More than likely he will find a preference for impersonal style for like most human beings; businessman has been slow to break tradition. Next, the writer should consider the formality of the report situation. If the situation is informal, as when the report is really a personal communication of information between business associates, personal writing is appropriate. But if the situation is formal, as is case with most reports, the conventional impersonal style is best.

  Recgnizing the need for objectivity in their work, the early report writers to develop a writing style which convey this attitude. They reasoned that the source of the subjective quality in a report is the human being. And they reasoned that objectivity is best attained by emphasizing the factual material of a report rather 5than the personalities involved. So they worked to remove the human being from their writing. Impersonal writing style was the result. By impersonal writing is meant writing in the third person-without I’s, we’s or you’s.

  In recent years, impersonal writing has been strenuously questioned by many writers. These writers point out that personal writing is more forceful and direct than is impersonal writing. They contend that writing which brings both reader and writer into the picture is more like conversation and therefore more interesting. And the answer to the point on objectivity when written in personal style as when in impersonal style. Frequently, they counter with the argument that impersonal writing leads to an overuse of passive voice and a generally dull writing style. This last argument however lacks substances. Impersonal writing can and should be interesting. Any dullness it may have is wholly the fault of the writer. As proof, one has only to look at the lovely styles used by the writers for newspapers, news magazines and journals. Most of this writing is impersonal and usually it is not dull.

  As in most cases of controversy, there is some merit to the arguments on both sides. There are situations in which personal writing is best. There are situations in which impersonal writing is best. And there are situations in which either style is appropriate. The writer must decide at the outset of his work which style is best for his own situation.

  Her decision should be based on the circumstances of each report situation. First, he should consider the expectations or desires of those for whom he is preparing the report. More than likely he will find a preference for impersonal style for like most human beings; businessman has been slow to break tradition. Next, the writer should consider the formality of the report situation. If the situation is informal, as when the report is really a personal communication of information between business associates, personal writing is appropriate. But if the situation is formal, as is case with most reports, the conventional impersonal style is best.