1. How has your community addressed the problem of child abuse?
2. Assess the contribution of Non - Governmental organisations (NGOs) in Uganda.
3. Is mob justice a fair way of punishing criminals?
4. Examine the merits and demerits of political pluralism.
5. Assess the role played by the judiciary in Uganda.
6. To what extent is environmental degradation in Uganda a result of poor farming methods?
Answer one question from this section.
7. Study figure 1 below showing expenditure of the Bwambara government and answer the questions that follow.
Fig. 1: Bwambara Government Expenditure:
a) Express each of the sectors in the figure in degrees.
b) Calculate the amount of money spent on each of the following services:
i) General public services,
ii) Social services,
iii) Community services,
iv) Economic services,
v) Financial obligations.
c) If the exchange rate was shs.600 to the dollar, calculate the amount of money spent on defence in dollars.
d) Explain the pattern of expenditure of the Bwambara government.
e) If you were a policy maker in your country, what would your expenditure priorities be? Give reasons for your answer.
8. Read the passage below and answer the questions that follow using your own words whether possible.
We live surrounded by apparatus of science: the diesel engine and the experiment, the bottle of aspirins and the survey of opinion. We are hardly conscious of them: but behind them we are becoming conscious of a new importance in science. We are coming to understand that science is not a haphazard collection of manufacturing techniques carried out by a race of laboratory dwellers with acid yellow fingers and steel rimmed spectacles and no home for life. Science, we are growing aware, is a method and a force of its own, which has its own meaning and style and its sense of excitement. We are ware now that somewhere within the jungle of valves and formulae and shining glassware lies content, lies, let us admit, a new culture.
How are we to reach that culture, across its jargons and translate it into language which we know? The difficulties of the layman are my boyhood difficulties. He opens his newspaper and there stands a revelation in capitals: THE ELECTRONIC BRAIN OR SUPERSONIC FLIGHT, or is there life on mars? But capitals or italics, revelation remains in code for him. The language is as strange to him as The Anatomy of Melancholy was to me at fifteen. He was only the smallest vocabulary: a smattering from the other popular articles, school boy memories of the stinks lab, and a few names of scientists sprinkled at random across history. His history, which might have given an order to it all, is the most maddening of his uncertainties. I knew no English history, and therefore I could not make sense of literary development. How well i recall the helplessness with which I faced a list of names such as Marlowe and Coleridge and H. G. Wells. I could not make any historical order of them. It is hard to visualize my difficulty; yet just this is the difficulty which every reader meets when he sees the names of Napier, Humphrey Davy and Rutherford. These three scientists were contemporaries of the three writers, and they were by no means lesser men.
Acknowledge of history of course, even the history of science, will not do duty of science. But it gives us the backbone in the growth of science, so that the morning headline suddenly takes its place in the development of our world. It throws a bridge into science from whatever humanist interest we happen to stand on. And it does so because it asserts the unity not merely of history but knowledge. The layman's key to science is its unity with the arts. He will understand science as a culture when he tries to trace it in his own culture,
It has been one of the most destructive modern prejudices that art and science are different and somehow incompatible interests. We have fallen into the habit of opposing the artistic to the scientific temper; we even identify them with a creative and critical approach. In a society like ours which practices the division of labour there are of course specialised functions, as matters of convenience. As a convenience, and only as a convenience, the scientific function is different from the artistic. In the same way the function of thought differs from and complements the function of feeling. But the human race is not divided into thinkers and feelers and would not long survive the division.
Much of this quarrel between science and soul was trumped up by the religious apologists of queen Victoria's day, who were anxious to find science materialistic and unspiritual. The sneer that science is only critical came from others. It was made by the timid and laboured artists of the nineties in order that they might by comparison appear to be creative and intuitive. Yet this finesse could not hide their own knowledge that the best minds were already being drawn into the more adventurous practice of the new sciences: a movement which peacock had foreseen seventy years before in the four Ages of Poetry.
The arts and the sciences ever since have been in competition for the most lively young brains. This competition is itself the clearest evidence that good minds can fulfil themselves as well in one as in the other. Here in fact is one of the few psychological discoveries of our generation to which we can hold with a reasonable certainty: that the configuration of intelligence factors which distinguish the bright from the dull is most often much the same in one man as another, in the humanist as in the scientist. We are divided by schooling and experience; and we do differ less, in our aptitude; but below these, we share a deeper basis of common ability. This is why I write with confidence for laymen and scientists, because the reader who is interested in any activity which needs thought and judgement is almost certainly a person to whom science can be made to speak. It is not he who is deaf, but the specialists who have been dumb the specialists in the arts as well as the sciences.
Many people persuade themselves that they cannot understand mechanical things or that they have no head for figures. These convictions make them feel enclosed and safe, and of course save them a great deal of trouble. But the reader who has a head for anything at all is pretty sure to have a head for whatever he really wants to put his mind to. His interest, say in mathematics, has usually been killed by routine teaching, exactly as the literary interest of most scientists (and for that matter of most non - scientists) has been killed by the set book and the Shakespeare play. Few people would argue that those whose taste for poetry has not survived the school certificate are fundamentally intensive to poetry. Yet they cheerfully write off the large intellectual pleasures of science as if they belonged only to minds of a special cast. Science is not a special sense. It is as wide as the literal meaning of its name; knowledge. The notion of the specialised mind is by comparison as modern, as the specialised man, "the scientist", a word which is only a hundred years old.
a) Suggest a suitable title for this passage.
b) According to the passage, how does the author describe science?
c) In not more than 100 words, identify the similarities and differences between science and arts.
d) Explain the meaning of the following words and phrases as used in the passage:
I) Haphazard collection (line 04)
II) Across its jargons (line 10)
III) A smattering (line 15)
IV) Contemporaries (line 23)
V) Humanist interest (line 28)
VI) Modern prejudices (line 32)
VII) Incompatible (line 33)
VIII) Intuitive (line 45)
IX) Configuration of intelligence(line 53)
X) Fundamentally insensitive (line 68 - 69)