₦airaland Forum

laudate:
Are you serious?? Please what is the "true price of the house?" Kindly tell us.

I personally went there to check and the first asking price without even beating it down was 30 million then o. I am sure it would have fallen so flat now. OP thinks someone that wanna buy a house will approach her and give her the money. SMH. Why not link buyers to sellers. Everyone knows that agent fee is 10%. 5 % from seller and 5% from buyer. So, why the desperation?

OBALORLA:
true.
Things are gradually changing though,as places like Ikeja, Egbeda, Maryland et al are slowly but steadily catching up with tides.

I see

Jakumo:
Ayokele Jaiye ha ha ha. This one na new language for me o. I thought that Ayokele was the traditional Yoruba word for a car.

It is a common one o. "Ayokele jaiye" represents anyone who takes great care in having fun even when having fun to the maximum level. An "Ayokele jaiye" would rather stock his refrigerators with the best drinks and order "asun" and the best barbecues rather than going out to hang out in a bar lest a fight or other unforeseen danger ensues .

Jakumo:
Good for the "fun lovers", and thank God I will NEVER join their ranks to take that fateful ride into the Bermuda Triangle at night.

. The characteristics you are exhuming is typical of the rich, cool guy that wouldn't want to take any minute risk at all as cargo dey sea, money for business is underway etc etc. I prefer to stay till dawn wherever I am too. Life Na jeje jare. I share in your fears. Better to be safe than sorry. I hereby Christian you "AYOKELE JAIYE"

The island part of Lagos is generally safer than mainland. You can move around midnight and even 1,2 am without any fear and even cabs to take you to wherever you are going. Most fun lovers on the island are very responsible and police and other authorities respect people more here. I don't even panic if I'm still out of the house at late hours because there is no cause to unlike mainland where you will have to sleep wherever you are and wait for dawn in order to be safer.

masperano:
Oh no face palm not again.... I have to break my promise which is "not to respond to this again" (for the sake of posterity). benji93 please go back to my responses and read them very well. It is not about the solution to the problem (Mathematica can provide me with solution to inequations in 3 seconds). naturalwaves (by the way I like the bloke for his immense contribution to this forum) gave a handwritten solution to the inequation... derived a quadratic inequality from it and solved it but made a slight mistake which i pointed out to.... but in retrospect it seems he apparently misconstrued my solution to his quadratic inequality for the solution of the original inequation which I thought he was purposely intellectually trolling me because I made it clear it was for his derived quadratic (that is why i kept trying his solution to his quadratic inequality to see if it satisfies it rather than the inequation and also he was trying to extend the solution of his quadratic to the original inequation).

I really hope this will be my last response to this. Cheers!

Thanks for the compliment. Yeah, most of your points were on the quadratic till you mentioned at a time that the values will fail for both the quadratics and the parent equation. Moreover, the quadratic was derived from the equation but you kept on hiding behind the "if the qaudratic is correct tag". What you should have done is to check if the derived quadratic is wrong and correct the derived quadratic if it is wrong or even provide another solution to the problem from the beginning so that we can all follow through. I believe that would cost you nothing except if you do not have a pen all the while or you were not just in the mood to solve anything. It is a good thing to have someone scrutinize things so that everyone can get the best. It was never a game of right or wrong or ego play like you thought.

benji93:
CC: masperano,naturalwaves
I only need a contradiction to prove that a solution is wrong.
Let us test ur solution naturalwaves.
You insist that , the solution to the inequality 1/(3x)+1/4<(3x)/8 is x>-2/3,x>4/3, so we generalize this to the open interval(-2/3,∞)
1 satisfies the above interval, substituting it into the original equation, we have 7/12<3/8, which is false, this is where you had a problem, in your original solution(in pen), you wrote x>-2/3 or x>4/3, now this logic is inconsistent with the inequality (3x+2)(3x-4)>0, it should have been x>-2/3 and x>4/3, which implies x>4/3, the individual solutions x>-2/3,x>4/3 satisfy the equations on the left respectively and independently, but remember we only require the product of the 2 equations to be less than 0(you lost otuch of that while solving the problem), our individual solutions must be combined.
Masperano, apparently, you have a different solution, x<-2/3 or x>4/3, unfortunately your solution is wrong too,let's assume you are right, natural waves tried to test your solution, and he rightly tested it, though -2/3 is not -0.7, it is -0.66666666666666666...., but -0.9<-2/3, so naturalwaves' test number was correct.What appeals to me is a solution that work's not the mathematical formality.You were both wrong because your analysis was wrong, 1 half of your solution was right:x>4/3,but the other:x<-2/3 is wrong, you forget something, in your initial problem, the highest degree of x is 1, hence there is likely only 1 solution,but your intermediate solution, 36x^2-24x-32>0 has two distinct solutions,it isp ossible that only, one of the solutions of the intermediate step satisfies the main problem.To show this you will realize that the test number -0.9 satisfies the intermediate solution, but does not satisfy the main problem, which natural waves used in testing your solution. This might not have been the problem the poster intended, but nonetheless it is an interesting questions.Our solutions to problems usually depends on our inclination, some lay emphasis on mathematical formality others lay emphasis on solving the problem at hand.Whichever intermediate step you apply, your solution must satisfy your problem without condition.

Thank you so much for your response and analysis, it showed that you took out time to follow through. I appreciate your intellectual input and so sorry for the break on this thread. I have been getting home so late due to work and all. You got the exact thing that happened and put it succinctly. I really appreciate this.

When I tried solving the derived quadratic inequation and it was pointed to me that a part of it is wrong and the sign was converse, first thing I said was that I didn't violate the inequality rule and the sign should not be that . If my friend wanted to correct that, he was supposed to show another way of solving it which he did not. Rather, he asked me to test 0 in the quadratic inequation and and see that it does not satisfy my answer. I told him I just did and I truly saw that it does not satisfy. While thinking about it, I actually discovered that 0 cannot be used as a test because it will render the parent inequation undefined when slotted and so cannot even be used for the qaudratics as well. So, he brought other values.

For every of his suggested values, I tested them and told him it did not work. I suspected something was truly wrong with the my solution because my answers were disjointed and looked like a repetition since X greater than -2/3 and also greater than 4/3, I was like why not just say X greater than 4/3 is the unique answer(in my mind) . When I went online, all the solutions I saw says X greater than -2/3 but less than 0 and X greater than 4/3 are the solutions( the less than 0 part was the only difference in my solutions). So, I thought when there are disjointed values, the smaller one before 0 needs to be bounded by 0( As that seems to be the only explanation I could place). Meanwhile, he was emphasizing all the time that the values are wrong for both the quadratics and the parent equation even when I posted a solution through the programs. I tested all values within the given answers and they all worked. If he had said it is wrong for the quadratics but correct for the parent equation, it would have been a different thing entirely

After he tested the question on mathematica, the answers he brought out were same as the other programs I posted which he disagreed with previously. So, he shifted concentration on the quadratics again and started emphasizing that.

The only thing he did that got me slightly annoyed was the fact that he painted a picture of me arguing blindly which is not true because any time he says something, I usually consider it and test it. When I tested the values from his supposed answer, they were so wrong for the parent equation but he did not address the conflict when I told him, he turned away from it and concentrated on the qaudratic part. How can you get an answer that works for the quadratics but failing for the parent equation?? I believe if someone provides a solution and it is wrong, why not solve yours and ask me to check it out and we will all see and learn. There is no crime in that.

One part of the question has been answered. We all now know and agree that the solution is -2/3 < X <0, X> 4/3.
The other part has not been answered which is HOW? HOW WAS THIS ANSWER GOTTEN?? In my solution, I got -2/3<X, X> 4/3 with the missing 0 and up till now, I am yet to see a thorough solution apart from those where they will just open a wide interval between -2/3 and 4/3 and do several tests to see what values fit in before they came up with the " 0" boundary.

Aybalance:
.Okay.Thanks 4 the help.But i wanna ask if physics questions are welcomed @naturalwaves

I will try the ones I can lay my hands on .

masperano:
It is is either my response clearly went over your head or you are just purposely being intellectually dishonest. This will be my last response on this.... Let me make it very clear now.

1) My solution was to your quadratic inequality (9x^2-6x-8>0); your solution to that was x>-2/3, x>4/3 which is wrong, the correct solution is x<-2/3 and x>4/3. (Check the solution provided my Mathematica i attached ).

2) You used an online inequality software to get the actual solution to the original inequality but it is very obvious to me or to any one with a brain on his or her shoulders that you have no clue how they arrived at the solution, but instead to admit you do not know, you now tried to deceptively seek an equivalence of the original inequality solution to your erroneous solution by saying x>-2/3, x>4/3 is the same as -2/3<x<0 and x>4/3, claiming you have to split it by zero or whatever that means... this is at best laughable and further exposes your ignorance (when you are in a hole stop digging!).
I attached the true quadratic inequality of the original inequality when simplified which is (x(8+6x-9x^2)<0) which is clearly different from the quadratic you got. Now solving this quadratic Inequality you get -2/3<x<0,x>4/3 (The solution you claimed that is equal to yours). Very very dishonest.

Two things you got wrong: The very first simplification you got wrong... I even overlooked that ... and you still got the solution of your wrong simplification wrong( ) (which i provided the correct solution to). But because of your huge ego... you want to con people to believe that solution to the original inequality and yours are equal (This is what I find unacceptable). Take a look at your handwritten solution to that problem and tell me you still believe in what you did .

The solution to the original problem is -2/3<x<0, x>4/3

The solution to your quadratic inequality (9x^2-6x-8>0) (which you got by erroneously simplifying the original problem) is x< - 2/3 , x>4/3

The real simplification to the original inequality is (x(8+6x-9x^2)<0) in which the solution is -2/3<x<0, x>4/3.

Your solution x>-2/3 and x>4/3 is NOT equivalent to -2/3<x<0, x>4/3 as you deceptively claim.

Now i hope i am clear...

Cheers!

You are honestly very funny. I was not dishonest in anyway and stop using that term. I solved a quadratic equation and got disjointed values. I checked with your query and saw that it does not satisfy(check my previous posts) and I decided to check up online and even see the correct solution.When they placed the intervals, I thought it was done that way because of the disjointed values. It is you who was trying to be clever by half because you claimed the solution to the quadratic is wrong and even wrong for the question. This was what you wrote.

masperano:
This is not a matter of right and wrong. I still do not know if you are just playing the game of right and wrong or you honestly do not understand what is involved in solving quadratic inequality (you tend to solve it as though you are solving quadratic equation ). I will pretend it is latter: this is the only way i can motivate myself to respond to you and also so that other persons in the forum can get one or two from it as i have from other responses in this forum. So let me dive right into it. I repeat your solution is wrong for the quadratic inequality (which was what caught my eye in your previous handwritten solution) and even for the question

At least, one thing is clear and we can agree on the following
1. The correct answer to the original problem is -2/3 < X <0, X> 4/3
2. Yes, I may not have solved the derived quadratic expression well as there was no total agreement with the first problem and the derived quadratic.

Your mistake: You gave the impression that the final solution was wrong for even the first problem only for you to say otherwise with the mathematica. What you could have easily said is that the answer was correct but the derived quadratic is wrong and then go on to find out the reason for the disjoint. Why don't you try and work out the whole problem from the beginning and let me see your approach. We all learn everyday. So, this is not a matter of ego play. Do you get me?

masperano:
Dear Naturalwaves please find my response interspersed in yours.

Bro, you are still wrong, X > -2/3, x >4/3 is the correct set.

This is not a matter of right and wrong. I still do not know if you are just playing the game of right and wrong or you honestly do not understand what is involved in solving quadratic inequality (you tend to solve it as though you are solving quadratic equation ). I will pretend it is latter: this is the only way i can motivate myself to respond to you and also so that other persons in the forum can get one or two from it as i have from other responses in this forum. So let me dive right into it. I repeat your solution is wrong for the quadratic inequality (which was what caught my eye in your previous handwritten solution) and even for the question.

First you solved a quadratic inequality 9x^2-6x-8>0 and you rightly factorized it as (3x+2)(3x-4)>0 now this is where you went wrong: writing 3x+2>0 or 3x-4>0 solving for x and saying that is the solution of the aforementioned quadratic inequality. This IS INCORRECT. One has to be careful and be intuitive about it rather than solving it methodically.

There is nothing wrong with that. Inequalities can be solved as though they are real equestions and the intervals tested.

masperano:
only way that quadratic can be greater than zero is if (3x+2)>0 AND (3x-4)>0 OR (3x+2)<0 AND (3x-4)<0((-) x (-) =+). If you solve with the first condition you get what you obtained which is (x>-2/3 and x>4/3) now this you can collapse to mean (x>4/3).

Now we apply the second condition which is ((3x+2)<0 AND (3x-4)<0) and we get (x<-2/3 and x<4/3) which simply means (x<-2/3). This implies that your solution set is (x<-2/3 and x>4/3)

. You have lost touch with the concept.

masperano:
Now lets go to the real question.

If you look at this, it looks disjoint because we could then just say that X > 4/3 since it is greater than -2/3 as well. In such cases, rather than write X> -2/3 or X > 4/3 which is the same as -2/3 < X > 4/3, the proper way of writing it when such situation occurs is -2/3 < X < 0, X> 4/3.The only mistake I made was not to split it with the "0" interval. Therefore correct answer is [b]-2/3 < X <0, X> 4/3[/b]

This is factually inaccurate I suspect you know this but again let me pretend you do not know... x>4/3 x>-2/3, can never be written as -2/3 < X < 0, X> 4/3, please do not mislead people all in the quest to prove you are correct (respectable scientist do not). If you know me i have huge respect for scientist who admit that they are wrong when they realise they are(even Einstein admitted on occasions (on quantum mechanics and adding his cosmological constant to his fields equations in general relativity) ). Never put your ego ahead of objective truth. I am very willing to admit when i am wrong. The reason the solution of the question differ from the solution of your quadratic is because your quadratic inequality is not correct.

This is not a matter of proving right and wrong. Every thing can be subjected to critisims and amendments made where necessary but in this case you have failed to make a valid objection.

masperano:
Attached is the real quadratic inequality of your first inequality.

The question was not to solve the quadratics but to solve the given inequation and find values that can satisfy that. Whatever answer you get should be cross checked with the main question.

masperano:
for the scathing remarks.... I hold you to a very high standard, below which is unacceptable.

Cheers!

Honestly, nothing is scathering about your remarks, it is an intellectual debate and all forms of disagreements are welcomed provided they can be proved. Now, Mr. masperano, let us carry out a simple test of your solution.

Your solution states that, X < -2/3 which implies X < -0.7. Let us pick a value that is less than -0.7 say -0.9 and substitute it into 1/(3x) + 1/4 < (3x)/8. By this, we will obtain -0.12 < -0.33 which is wrong because -0.12 is actually > -0.33.

Let us try -0.8 as well into the question. We will obtain,
-0.16 < - 0.3 which again is not true because -0.16 is > -0.3.
As you can see, these two simple checks alone shows that your solution is wrong and the answer can never be X< -2/3 and so I do not agree with you.

Betterstill , explain why your solution does not fit when checked with the question Thanks

I repeat, the correct solution to the inequation is -2/3<X <0, X> 4/3

Continued. CC: masperano

@masperano. See another solution from cymath

Aybalance:
100% clear.Ar u a student,aspirant or ??.Sorry 4 the questions

No bro. I grad 7 years ago o.

masperano:
Nah I don't think so (although I picked the wrong example), I am pretty sure it is incorrect. Try any number greater than -2/3 but less than 4/3 (for example 1 which is greater than -2/3)... Your solution crumbles ( it fails to satisfy the quadratic).
Or indeed try out other values outside your solution set, say -5 (infact any number less than -2/3) you see that it satisfies the quadratic solution which again invalidates your solution.

The true solution to that your quadratic equation is x<-2/3 and x>4/3. Cheers!

Bro, you are still wrong, X > -2/3, x >4/3 is the correct set. This means that -2/3 < X > 4/3. If you look at this, it looks disjoint because we could then just say that X > 4/3 since it is greater than -2/3 as well. In such cases, rather than write X> -2/3 or X > 4/3 which is the same as -2/3 < X > 4/3, the proper way of writing it when such situation occurs is -2/3 < X < 0, X> 4/3.The only mistake I made was not to split it with the "0" interval. Therefore correct answer is -2/3 < X <0, X> 4/3



Quick check.: -2/3 is approximately -0.667 which is approximately -0.7. The set of values that will satisfy my answers for part 1 are all numbers that are greater than this(-0.7) but less than 0. Examples of such are; -0.5,-0.4,-0.3,-0.2,-0.1 etc. You can try as much as you want.
Note: All trials must be checked with the initially given inequation and not the quadratics you are trying it out with.

I even used online tools and inequality solvers online to crossycheck and this was what they showed.

Icon79:
Thank you so much, bro!

If I get a dollar for every fake news I read on this forum, I would be richer than Dangote by now. Our moderators definitely need to do better, especially on the threads they move to the FP. At minimum try to verify the information ... that can be easily done via google, or try crosschecking the info with other legitimate news outlets.


O pari

Exactly bro. Nairaland is losing credibility so fast. Moderators just move any trash without verifications to the front page. To make it worse, an idiat is even still arguing after providing him with more than enough evidences. Such a shame!

LasGidiOwner:
You are a dumb illiterate. Stop embarrassing your idiotic self. In this game everyone is a winner. Stop being foolish

[s][/s]


BALI, INDONESIA: Today, was a good day for Team Nigeria participating in the World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) currently going on in Bali, Indonesia as they beat their opponent, Team Barbados to 3 – 0 in a preliminary round of debate.

In a motion titled “This House would deny tax-exempt status to religious institutions that refuse to appoint female leaders”, the Team Nigeria showed the stuff they were made of when in clear, logical and analytical manner they opposed the motion, clearing defeating their Barbados counterparts with all three judges unanimously giving them victory.

The 2017 World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) is taking place from August 1 to August 11 in Bali, an island in Indonesia with the reputation as an international tourism destination known for its natural beauty and unique culture heritage.

The tournament is hosted by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture in collaboration with The Jakarta Post Foundation.

Participants from all across the globe are taking part in WSDC Bali 2017. As the WSDC attracts more nations to participate each year, the local organizing committee in Indonesia made preparations to accommodate up to 700 people consisting of debaters, adjudicators, coaches, and observers.

In line with the WSDC rule, each nation may send one delegation that will be the official representative of their nation to compete in WSDC Bali 2017.

The championship applies the 3-on-3 debate format, in which each debater has 8 minutes for their speeches while reply speech lasts for 4 minutes. Each team can consist of 3 to 5 debaters. Before the grand final round, there will be 8 preliminary rounds, the partial doubleoctofinals, the octofinals, the quarterfinals, and the semifinals.

Serving as Co-Chief Adjudicator of WSDC Bali 2017 is Kip Oebanda from the Philippines. In addition to his extensive experience in debate adjudication, Kip has also served as member of the panel during WSDC. Cape Town 2012 and WSDC Antalya 2013. At the moment, the local organizing committee of WSDC Bali 2017 is still looking for someone else to be Kip’s Co-Chief Adjudicator.

Stop spamming the thread. I am done with you.

Nigeria faced Singapore in one of the rounds. See our representatives here. They tried and kudos to them but we did not win the competition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z79UlWVtWnI

LasGidiOwner:
You are dumb. Everyone is a winner. Stop showcasing your hopelessness. Winning is winning, afterwards you have not won anything in your life before.

[s][/s]

Honestly, you are the greatest idiat I have ever come across on this platform. I said Nigeria did not win it, you said we did and I should provide evidence. I provided link evidence, you said you dont trust it, I provided pictures, you still did not trust it. I provided videos where you saw clearly, that Singapore won the competition and rather than accept your mistakes and apologise, you resorted into abuse and self defence. Since everyone is a winner by your logic, why did they bother to travel for the competition? . They should have stayed back then.

theophorus:
I agree that Anambra team won the debate but Please, what was the reward and can we have pix of them holding the trophy?

. He is currently photoshoping them. He is coming soon.

LasGidiOwner:
Imagine this clown. Here another report that claimed otherwise.





Today, was a good day for Nigeria as the Team Nigeria participating in the World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) currently going on in Indonesia beat their opponent, the Team Barbados to 3 – 0 in a preliminary round of debate.

In a motion titled “This House would deny tax-exempt status to religious institutions that refuse to appoint female leaders”, the Team Nigeria showed the stuff they were made of when in clear, logical and analytical manner they opposed the motion, clearing defeating their Barbados counterparts with all three judges unanimously giving them victory.

Anambra and Ebonyi States students make up the Team Nigeria and are doing Nigeria proud in Indonesia.

The Team Nigeria is made up of the following students - Chiagozie Nnamdi Udorji, (Anambra) Precious Nneka Chigozie (Anambra), Chidimma Frances Akwue (Anambra), Josephine Chinonyelum Paschaline Enogu (Ebonyi), and Obianuju Blessing Eze (Ebonyi)

A highly elated Team Manager and the Coordinator of the President’s Schools Debate Nigeria (PSDN), Elder Dare Oritu, in reacting to the victory said: “I am very proud of Anambra and Ebonyi States from where we drew our Team Nigeria. It is a clear that they are not pushovers.”

Meanwhile, Nigeria at this event will be bidding to host the World Schools Debating Championship in 2019. We excitedly await the outcome of the bid.

Source; https://www.nationalhelm.co/2017/08/anambra-students-shine-world-schools-debating-championship-indonesia.html

Where and when does winning a preliminary round of a debate equate to winning a competition? Your education was a waste. Every year, at least 50 countries always participate in the competition and there are usually rounds before the finals. Nigeria did not even smell the semis talk less of finals. Keep on basking in stewpidity. Rather than you apologizing and learning, you are making a mockery of yourself. My boy, you are fighting a losing battle. Look for your mates.

A clearer and more detailed video of how team Singapore defeated England in the finals of the WSDC 2017. I guess the bodies of the representatives from Singapore were superimposed on the body of our Nigeria representatives. I wonder what LasgidiOwner has to say about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HUFM3JZaLQ

This is a video of the grand finale of the competition where Singapore beat England to emerge winners

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZDyPvqICM
I guess this video was edited too abi?@LagosLasgidiOwner; the educated fooooooooool that cannot make simple use of the internet.

LasGidiOwner:
Some of you are just stark illiterates walking around the cyberspace constituting nuisance. Where in your wikipedia link did it showed that it wasn't Anambra that won the 2017 edition? That aside, do you know that I can edit the same wikipedia and put your name there?

I asked you to give us a news report where it is stated that the countries you earlier listed won the 2017 edition but you went get us a wikipedia link. You are just dumb and should be banned for spreading your dumbness all the place.

[s][/s]

Ode! Your argument is so weak. I have been following the competition for the past 5 years and know better than you. Nigeria did not win it. There are other sources too. This is another link
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/team-singapore-wins-world-schools-debating-championships-in-bali
This is the picture of the winners

LasGidiOwner:
You don't need to cry and spit everywhere with saliva with your lengthy cry of sorrow. Just post a link to buttress your own point and stop the unnecessary cry for mercy.

[s][/s]

If you were open and wanted to see what the truth is, you would not cancel out what I wrote. Don't you have internet in your house?? Or you think the only use of the internet is for abusing people. Anyway, let me give you the wikipaedia page where you can read about the whole history of the World Schools Debating Championship right from 1988 when it all started till 2017. You will even see a table of all past winners and other award categories and Nigeria has never won "shishi" in the history of the competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Schools_Debating_Championships

Moreover, have you ever seen any Champion without a trophy? Educated foooooooool

afo7219:
sorry. I have tried this approach n I got d same tin but d answer is 1,661

The answer is wrong then. Not everything you see in a book is correct.

AmericanQuarter:
Governor Obiano has handed out the sum of 1million as reward to the victorious State Debate Team from Indonesia and two pupils of Anambra origin who scored
highest in this year's Federal common entrance examinations.

Governor Obiano gave out the sum when he received both groups during yesterday's State Executive Council meeting held at the Governor's Lodge, Amawbia.

The Anambra Debate Team comprising 3 students of secondary schools in the State, won the just concluded World Schools Debating Championship held in Bally, Indonesia where 53 countries participated.

Each of the students received cash prize of 100,000 each while their two coaches got 150, 000 each.



Also during the meeting, the Governor received two pupils of Anambra origin who scored 189 out of 200 to emerge tops in this year's Federal Common Entrance examinations.

Miss Chinazom Onubogu aged 10, who hails from Obosi is a pupil of God's wisdom International School, Nnewi while Miss Chinecherem Emeka-Egbuna from Ichida, aged 11, is a pupil of Tendercare International School, Nkwelle Ezunaka.

Both of them received the sum of 50 000 naira apiece, secondary school scholarship and University scholarship subject to their performance, while their schools got the sum of 150, 000 each.

Announcing the reward, Governor Obiano who commended the students and pupils for the laudable feats attained, said his government will continue to reward distinguished achievements that bring honor to the state.

The Governor who said it is a thing of pride that Anambra pupils came tops in the National Transitional examinations, noted that that it simply points to the quality of education offered in schools in the state through the support of his administration.



He encouraged the students and pupils to continue to excel in their various endeavours, reminding them that with hardwork, belief in God and their ability, the sky is their limit.

Earlier, the Commissioner for Education, Professor Kate Omenugha said the achievements bear eloquent testimony to the fact that the state education sector under the present administration is moving forward.

Responding on behalf of the debate Team, Miss Precious Chigozie thanked the Governor for recognizing them and supporting them to garner international experience in debating by sponsoring them to the World Schools debating Championship.

In their separate remarks, the pupils, Miss Onubogu and Miss Emeka-Egbuna who shared their dreams of becoming important persons in future, said the Governor's appreciation will spur them towards greater achievements in honor of the state.

The pupils were later presented with medical books by the State Ministry of Education in support of their academic ambitions.

http://www.absradiotv.com/8890-obiano-rewards-victorious-anambra-debate-team-top-scorers-in-fg-common-entrance-exams

lalasticlala

It is such a shame that this report is fake. The writer could not even spell "Bali". How can they win the World School Debate Championship and not get a trophy? Well, just to set the records straight, this year's edition took place in Bali, Indonesia and it was won by Singapore. England was second. The Nigerian team did not even make the semi final talk less of winning it. South Africa and United states were the semi finalist in the competition. This is a big lie and it is such a shame. This is not to take anything away from the students that represented us. Well done to them.
Moderators should always verify things before moving to front page so that the public will not be fed with falsehood. Most senseless Naija bloggers have already pasted the fake news with their usual copy and paste.

afo7219:
Pls guys help me solve this calculation wit explanations.
Alhaji bello has 36months car loan of #50,000 @ 12% interest rate per annum. What is the MONTHLY loan repayment?

There are different ways to solve this but let us take a simple approach. Since the interest rate is given per annum, you have to use years to solve.
36 months is 3 years. Number of years = 3 years.
Let us now calculate his interest
I= PRT
I= 50000* 12/100 * 3
I= 18000
The interest is 18,000 naira. So, the amount he is supposed to pay for the whole 36 months will be 50,000+ 18,000 = 68,000 naira.
This means that he is going to pay 68k back for the 50k he collected.
Since he is going to pay 68000 naira for 36 months, he will pay 68,000/36 every month and that will be #1,888. 89k.
Every month, he will pay #1,888.89k

Aybalance:
Am really glad,thanks man

You are welcome.You understand the solution well, right?

Aybalance:
pls,i also need help on this simplification.thanks in advance

Here is the solution :

dejt4u:
77th

Deji, call my number or message me on whatsapp. Very urgent! Are you in Lagos??

Aybalance:
natural waves ,am still expecting your reply because av been trying the question all this day without solution .I think da question iz faulty.But i need confirmation from someone

Okay. Will solve it today.

Aybalance:
sorry for that .i think i need 2 improve on my writing but anyways it is 4/3 and every thing is "a" not 9.if it is still unclear ,i could post the questions again .thanks

okay. I will solve . I am on the road.