Questions 30 to 37 are based on the following passage.

1 Nnaemeka, for his own part, was very deeply-affected by his father's grief. But
he kept hoping that it would pass away. If it had occurred to him that never in the
history of his people had a man married a woman with a different tongue, he might
have been less optimistic. "It has never been heard," was the verdict of an old man
speaking a few weeks later. In that short sentence he spoke for all of his people. 5
This man had come with others to commiserate with Okeke when news went round
about his son's behaviour. By that time the son had gone back to Lagos.
2 "It has never been heard," said the old man again with a sad shake of his head.
"What did our Lord say?" asked another gentlemen. "Sons shall rise against
their Fathers; it is there in the Holy Book." 10
"It is the beginning of the end." said another.
The discussion thus tending to become theological, Madubogwu, a highly
practical man, brought it down once to the ordinary level.
"Have you thought of consulting a native doctor about your son?" he asked
Nnaemeka's father. 15
"He isn't sick," was the reply.
"What is he then? The boy's mind is diseased and only a good herbalist can
bring him back to his right senses. The medicine he requires is Amalile, the same
that women apply with success to recapture their husbands' straying affections."
"Modubogwu is right," said another gentleman. "This thing calls for medicine." 20
"I shall not call in a native doctor." Nnaemeka's father was known to be
obstinately ahead of his more superstitious neighbours in these matters. "If my son
were to kill himself, let him do it with his own hands. It is not for me to help him."
3 Six months later, Nnaemeka was showing his young wife a short letter from his
father: 25
It amazes me that you could be so unfeeling as to send me your wedding picture. I
would have sent it back. But on further thought I decided to cut off your wife and
send it back to you because I have nothing to do with her. How I wish I have
nothing to do with you either.
When Nene read through the letter and looked at the mutilated picture, her eyes 30
filled with tears, and she began to sob.
"Don't cry my darling," said her husband. "He is essentially good-natured and
will one day look more kindly on our marriage." But years passed and that one day
did not come.
For eight years, Okeke would have nothing ti) do with his son, Nnaemeka. 35
Only three times when Nnaemeka asked to come home and spend his leave did his
father write to him.
"I can't have you in my house," he replied in one occasion. "It can be of no
interest to me where and how you spend your leave — or your life, for that matter."
4 The story eventually got to the little village in the heart of the Ibo country that 40
Nnaemeka and his young wife were the most happy couple. But his father was one of
the few people in the village who knew nothing about this. He always displayed so
much temper whenever his son's name was mentioned that everyone avoided it in his
presence. By tremendous effort of will, he had succeeded in pushing his son
to the back of his mind. The strain had nearly killed him but he had persevered, and 45
won.
5 The prejudice against Nnaemeka's marriage was not confined to his little
village. In Lagos especially among his people who worked there, it showed itself
in a different way. Their women when they meet at their village meeting were not
hostile to Nene. Rather, they paid her such excessive deference as to make her feel 50
she was not one of them. But as time went on, Nene gradually broke through some
of this prejudice and began to make friends among them. Slowly and grudgingly,
they began to admit that she kept her home much better than most of them.
6 Then, one day he received a letter from Nene, and in spite of himself he began
to glance through it perfunctorily until out of a sudden the expression of his face 55
changed and he began to read more carefully.
...Our two sons from the day they learnt that they had a grandfather, have
insisted on being taken to him. If ind it impossible to tell them that you will not see
them. I implore you to allow Nnaemeka to bring them home for a short time during
his leave next month. I shall remain here in Lagos... 60
(Adapted from Smalzer, W. and Lim, P.L (1994). Across Cultures: Universal Themes in
Literature. United States. Heinle & Heinle Publishers)

30 The first paragraph tells us that the people from Nnaemeka's village were

A close knit
B hospitable

C interfering

D conservative

31 Why did Okeke not want to call in a native doctor?

A He was stubborn.
B He disliked the use of herbal medicine.

C He was less religious than the other villagers.

D He was less superstitious than the other villagers.

32 The first letter written to his son shows that Okeke felt

A betrayed by his son

B rejected by Nnaemeka's wife

C unable to stand up to his peers

D insulted for not being invited to the wedding

33 mutilated (line 30) means

A rejected
B damaged

C discarded
D disfigured
34 The subsequent letters written by Okeke revealed that he was A
distant
B distrustful
C indifferent
D unforgiving

35 By tremendous effort ... and won. (lines 44 to 46)

This description of Okeke shows his A

lack of judgement
B need to be independent

C anguish over his decision

D inability to stand up to his beliefs

36
... they paid her such excessive deference as to make her feel she was not one of them.
(lines 50 and 51)

The quote above can best be paraphrased as

A Nene felt overwhelmed by their politeness
B the womenfolk made Nene feel very unhappy

C the womenfolk were so polite. that Nene felt like a misfit

D Nene was unable to integrate because she was different from them

37 Nene's letter can most aptly be described as

A an appeal
B an inquiry

C a complaint
D a negotiation
Questions 38 to 45 are based on the following passage.

1 The World Health Organization (WHO) says the world is in the grip of a "crisis"
of non-infectious diseases. Salt is one of the main culprits because of its effect on
blood pressure. Only one substance gives the WHO greater cause for concern, and
that is tobacco. For the past 40 years, doctors around the world have been waging
a war on salt. In some places they have been very successful. And yet in recent 5
months something has shifted. Headlines have appeared questioning the benefits
of eating less salt. Some have claimed salt reduction is positively harmful; even
Scientific American declared: "It is time to end the war on salt."
2 The food available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors would have been low in salt
so we have evolved an exquisite system detecting it in our diet. Unlike energy, our 10
bodies cannot readily store salt and so we are experts at hanging on to it, largely
through a recycling unit in the kidneys. It is possible to survive perfectly well
on very little salt. But most people eat much more salt than they need. While
US dietary guidelines set an adequate intake of 3.75 grammes a day, the average
Westerner eats about eight grammes; in some parts of Asia, 12 grammes is the 15
norm.
3 This effortless consumption of salt horrifies doctors. Our kidneys can excrete
some excess salt but to keep fluid concentrations stable, our bodies retain extra
water. An inevitable consequence of this excess fluid is a rise in blood pressure.
Exactly how is not clear. Nor is the reason why some people are more sensitive 20
than others. But the fact that it does is uncontroversial. It is the effect on blood
pressure that causes problems. High blood pressure is one of the main risk factors
for cardiovascular disease; even small increases raise your risk of having a stroke.
For this reason, salt reduction has become one of the most important public health
targets in the West. Dietary guidelines vary, but generally recommend no more than 25 five to
six grammes of salt a day.
4 In the United Kingdom, this kind of salt reduction was mooted in 1994 but
hastily shelved after protests from food manufacturers. In the intervening years,
lobbying by scientists, public health groups gradually turned the tide — not least by
raising public awareness — and now the industry is broadly reconciled to modest 30
salt reductions. The most vigorous defender of the status quo is the Salt Institute, a
trade body representing 48 producers and sellers of sodium chloride. This institute
has a long history of trumpeting any research that goes against the orthodoxy and
picking holes in the evidence against salt. So what is the evidence? Over the years
dozens of studies have been done and the findings are far from uniform. 35
5 One approach is to look for a link between how much salt people eat when left to
their own devices and their rates of heart attacks and strokes. In 2009, cardiologist,
Francesco Cappuccio pooled all the data and found a strong relationship between a
salty diet and cardiovascular disease (British Medical Journal (BMJ, vol. 339,
p. 4567). Another way is to intervene directly in people's diets — take two groups 40
of people, get one of them to eat less salt for a while and see what the outcome is.
These trials take more work than observational studies but several have been done.
The biggest managed to get thousands of people to cut down on salt by about
two grammes a day for up to four years and saw a 25 per cent fall in cardiovascular
disease (BUJ., vol. 334, p. 885). Or you can look at whole countries, taking the 45
before-and-after approach. Fifteen years ago, northern Japan had one of the world's
 biggest appetites for salt — an average of 18 grammes a day, a person — and
shockingly high numbers of strokes. The government implemented a salt reduction
programme and by the late 1960s, average salt consumption had fallen by four
grammes a day and stroke deaths were down by 80 per cent. Finland, another salt- 50
guzzling nation, achieved similar gains in the 1970s.
6 However, the evidence is not always so clear. In July, Cochrane Collaboration,
an international body dedicated to assessing medical evidence, published a study
on salt and cardiovascular disease. The study was a "meta-analysis", pooling the
results of all the best-designed randomised controlled trials that have been done. 55
Seven trials met the quality criteria, with over 6000 subjects in total. The analysis
did show that people who cut back on salt have slightly lower blood pressure and are
less likely to die from heart attacks. But, crucially, the effect on deaths was not big
enough to be statistically significant. The research was published simultaneously by
Cochrane and the American Journal of Hypertension (vol. 24, p. 834), whose editor 60
Michael Alderson is a long-time critic of salt reduction. Alderson claims that the
Cochrane study is flawed. When he re-analysed the same data in a slightly different
way, he found a reduction that was statistically significant. Far from casting doubt
on salt reduction, some argued that the findings supported it.
7 The Cochrane report was not the end of it. Last month, Alderson's journal 65
published further meta-analysis purporting to show salt reduction could actually
be harmful. It concluded that while cutting salt lowered blood pressure, blood
levels of certain hormones were increased, which could raise cardiovascular risk.
But many of the studies included in the analysis lasted just a few days and involved
big salt reductions. Sudden and steep salt reduction can lead to counter-productive 70
hormonal changes but modest reductions do not.
(Adapted from New Scientist, December 2011)

38 Which of the following questions best addresses the issue in paragraph 1?

A Is salt a health hazard?
B Is salt as bad as tobacco?
C Is the war on salt ever going to end?
D Is salt to be blamed for high blood pressure?

39 Which of the following is true of paragraph 2?

A Our ancestors avoided salt in their food.
B Asians' consumption of salt is the highest.
C Salt in our bodies is recycled in the kidneys.
D Eating eight grammes of salt a day is about the right amount.
40 Based on paragraph 3, which of the following statements are accurate?
I We know that there is a consensus on a safe limit of salt intake.
11 We know how excess liquid in the kidney increases blood pressure.
111 We know that excess fluid in the body causes a rise in blood pressure.
IV We know why some people are more sensitive to excess fluid in the body.
A I and III
B 1 and IV
C II and III
D II and IV

41 What is the writer's main intention in paragraph 5?

A To create awareness of the importance of salt reduction
B To evaluate the findings of some studies on salt reduction
C To highlight studies that clearly show a relationship between salt intake and heart disease
D To explain the approaches adopted in studies on the relationship between salt intake and
heart disease

42 Which of the following is an observational study?

A The study published in BMJ, vol. 339, p. 4567. (lines 39 and 40)
B The study reported in BMJ, vol. 334, p. 885. (line 45)
C The study conducted in Japan. (line 46)
D The study carried out in Finland. (line 50)

43 The most significant finding of the Cochrane Collaboration study is

A the higher the salt intake, the more likely death will strike
B there is a direct link between salt intake and level of blood pressure
C when blood pressure is lowered, death through heart attacks is reduced
D the relationship between salt reduction and death rate is not statistically significant

44 Alderson claims that the Cochrane study is flawed. What is his reason?
A The sample size was small.
B The data was wrongly analysed.
C The meta-analysis approach was not suitable.
D Only seven trials were included in the analysis.

45 The main purpose of this article is to

A encourage research
B resolve controversies
C promote healthy living
D present a balanced view.