Revise all the words and pharases appeared in precis papers since 1971. It is essential to pass precis papers


Sent from iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

The
nuclear deal with
Iran is still only
preliminary but if
concluded it will
represent the most
important American
diplomatic achievement since
the Dayton Accords ended the
Bosnian war two decades ago.
That agreement was imperfect.
Still, not another shot was fired
in anger after the loss of more
than 100,000 lives. This accord,
too, reflects harsh realities —
Iran has mastered the nuclear
fuel cycle — yet represents the
best possibility by far of
holding Iran short of a bomb,
ring-fencing its nuclear
capacities, coaxing change in
the Islamic Republic, and
ushering a hopeful society
closer to the world. If the
yardstick is effectiveness, and
it must be, no conceivable
alternative even comes close.
Perfection is not part of
diplomacy’s repertoire.
President Obama, through his
courageous persistence, has
changed the strategic dynamic
in the Middle East. As he
reassures worried allies,
especially Israel and Saudi
Arabia, he has also signaled
that the United States will
pursue its national interest,
even in the face of fierce
criticism, where the logic of
that interest is irrefutable.
Blocking Iran’s path to a bomb,
avoiding another war with a
Muslim country, and re-
establishing diplomatic contact
with a stable power hostile to
the butchers of the Islamic
State amounts to a compelling
case for an America faced by a
fragmenting Middle Eastern
order.
It is not a bad thing to remind
allies that enjoying irrevocable
support from the United States
cannot mean exercising a veto
on American actions. Indeed, it
may be a good thing, because it
stimulates creative reflection.
This breakthrough with Iran,
impossible without the tireless
work of Secretary of State John
Kerry, looks like the
cornerstone of Obama’s foreign
policy legacy.
Of course, the president needed
partners. He found them in
other major powers, but most
of all in President Hassan
Rouhani of Iran who, as Karim
Sadjadpour of the Carnegie
Endowment for International
Peace observed to me, “aspires
to be Iran’s Deng Xiaoping.”
Rouhani’s mantra is: Preserve
the system, fast-forward the
economy, open to the world.
Rouhani does not aspire to be
Iran’s Gorbachev. His thing is
adaptation, not
transformation. He is of the
system, hence his room for
maneuver. Unlike Iran’s hard-
liners, he believes preservation
of Iran’s theocracy is
compatible with — perhaps
dependent on — normalized
relations with the rest of the
world, including the United
States. That is a potential
game-changer.
Perhaps the most significant
words after the agreement
came from Rouhani: “Some
think that we must either fight
the world or surrender to
world powers. We say it is
neither of those, there is a third
way. We can have cooperation
with the world.” He added:
“With those countries with
which we have a cold
relationship, we would like a
better relationship. And if we
have tension or hostility with
any countries, we want an end
to tension and hostility with
those countries.”
There were no qualifiers there
— not for “The Great Satan,” as
the United States has been
widely known in Iran since the
theocratic revolution of 1979,
not even for Israel. The
message to the fight-or-
surrender, heads-in-the-sand
hard-liners was clear. Once
again, Rouhani suggested he is
a more courageous and
resourceful reformer than
Iran’s other presidential
reformist, Mohammad
Khatami, who spoke a good
line but could not deliver.
Many Iranians are rubbing
their eyes in disbelief: Obama’s
post-accord statement
broadcast in Tehran (selfies
taken against that TV backdrop
became popular); praise of
Obama’s understanding of Iran
from former President Ali
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani;
support for the preliminary
agreement at Friday prayers. A
revolution that delivered not
freedom but oppression is now
promising reasonable
adaptation to changed times.
But of course Iran has often
veered from reason.
Renewed disappointment is not
implausible. There are
implacable opponents of this
American-Iranian détente in
both countries. The supreme
leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
has been silent, even if things
could never have come this far
without his backing. He may
well fight to keep the nuclear
deal hermetic, sealed off from
a wider opening. Rouhani takes
an opposite view: He wants a
nuclear deal that is a catalyst
to fixing Iran’s relations with
the world. Obama, too, has
spoken of his hope that a
concluded deal “ushers in a
new era in U.S.-Iranian
relations.”
At the very least, if finalized,
the deal condemns the United
States and Iran to interact for
more than a decade. They will
be in conflict about most
things. That’s alright.
Institutionalized discord is far
better than traumatized
alienation. I cannot see the
accord being hermetic. There’s
too much pent-up expectation
among Iran’s youth, too much
economic possibility, too much
pro-Western sentiment in Iran,
too much American business
interest in Iran. Of course,
that’s what Khamenei is afraid
of. Yet he’s come this far.
The 40th anniversary of the
revolution, and the seizing of
American hostages in Iran, is
four years off. I’d bet on the
United States Embassy in
Tehran reopening then. The ice
has broken.


My Precise::
Iran-USA Nuclear deal, though to be finalized, has many expectation as well few grives. This deal, from American prospective a deplomatic milstone and relaxation from embargoes to Iranian economy. This is all because, ardent effort, of Obama, who is succeeded, to some extent, in stablizing the middle east without lossing an alley, restraining Iran's Nuclear persuation, demising the chances of another war against Islamic country and expecting Iran, a new ally against Islamic State; a new threat to world peace. Obama's counterpart has played decisive role in redefining the Iranian earlier Nuclear Image to world. Deal also overhauled the distorted image of USA to Iranian people. However there are many peoples, in both countries, with caustic object for each other. Deal doesn't doomed the expection of youth, of prosper Iran, but made them more hopeful and it may be, surely, a fresh air for dewindiling Iranian economy. This is the new begining of Iran-USA relation, indebtend to Joan kerry.

I was a firm believer in democracy, whereas he (D. H. Lawrence) had developed the whole philosophy of Fascism before the politicians had thought of it. “I don’t believe,-”he wrote, “in democratic control. I think the working man is fit to elect governors or overseers for his immediate circumstances, but for no more. You must utterly revise the electorate: The working man shall elect superiors for the things that concern him immediately, no more. From the other classes, as they rise, shall be elected the higher governors. The thing must culminate in one real head, as every organic thing must-no foolish republics with no foolish presidents, but an elected king, something like Julius Caesar,” He, of a course, in his imagination, supposed that when a dictatorship was established he would be the Julius Caesar. This was the part of the dream-like quality of all his thinking. He never let himself bump into reality. He would go into long tirades about how one must proclaim “the truth” to the multitude, and he seemed to have no doubt that multitude would listen. Would he put his political philosophy into a book? No in our corrupt society the written word is always a lie. Would he go in Hyde Park-and proclaim “the Truth” from a soap box? No: That would be far too dangerous (odd streaks of prudence emerged in him from time to time). Well, I said, what would you do? At this point he would change the subject Gradually I discovered that he had no real wish to make the world better, but only to indulge in eloquent Soliloquy about how had it was. If anybody heard the soliloquies so much the better, but they were designed at most to produce a little faithful band of disciples who could sit in the deserts of New Mexico and feel holy. All this was conveyed to me in the language of a Fascist dictator as what I must preach, the “must” having thirteen underlining.” (Lord Russell)



precis title =D.H lawrence ; a nazism dictator

Lord russel says that he was a concrete follower of liberal government.He says that D.H lawrence had broached the idea of nazism before the political leaders .He thinks that the civil servants should be selected from different classes and should reach the highest post of government.D.H Lawrence thought that he will be like julius ceaser when his government would be formed.But he never bothers to get into reality.The author determined that he had no intention of making this universe a better place but to wander in his self conversions of how worse they were.This was conducted to the author that what should he deliever in the must have 13 underlinings by the conversation of a Nazism leader.

please check my precis and point out any mistakes....

so disappointing ..no one bothers to reply

When you choose a title, better not to make it too hard-hitting. Keep in mind that the examiner might be a fan of DH Lawrence. And even if s/he isn't, such a sweeping title is not a good idea.

Secondly, don't use 'he says', 'he thinks' again and again. You need to save the precious little space you're being offered for precis, don't waste it.

But over all how is it?? Any grammatical mistakes?? Rate it out of 10...

I am sure you can write a better precis. One that is a whole, not a group of sentences forcefully stuck together. Better write it again with more flow.

About the grammar part, it's alright, apart from your last sentence which I did not understand:
This was conducted to the author that what should he deliever in the must have 13 underlinings by the conversation of a Nazism leader.

Good effort;but you need more organization.