Originally Posted by wasxxm

Regarding the length of a precis, I have asked three English professors (to shed my doubts). They said that in principle, a precis is shorter the better. So if someone can converge the gist of a 100 words paragraph in a 20 words precis, while portraying the main picture, it's better than a 30 words precis.

For an instance, take these lines:

"The man ran after the old lady. She stumbled over a rock and fell to the ground. The man stabbed her repeatedly in the back until she lost consciousness. She died afterwards succumbing to the wounds."

Precis: "The man stabbed the lady to death."

Originally Posted by wasxxm

Exactly. There are two entirely different approaches to tackle a precis. One makes a mind beforehand about the "1/3 length rule", caring less about the potential squeezing of the paragraphs at hand. While on the other hand, one is only concerned about retaining the gist of each paragraph, shrinking the size without keeping in view the 1/3 length thing - effectively producing a more concise precis.

Originally Posted by wasxxm

Eager -> Thanks for your feedback. But I would like to know the important points I have left. Or better, if you could produce your own precis - it help me do a side by side comparison.

Originally Posted by Eager

Precis 2015

Title: Wars: Destroying Civilizations Throughout History

History has repeatedly shown that wars have been the major cause behind the destruction of civilizations. Like all other addictions, it seems to appear tolerable until it completely takes over countries and become inescapable. In earlier times, states had a tendency to go to wars with each other just for the sake of acquiring military expertise. Although, the sufferings borne were far more than the benefits acquired, even then their defeats could not keep countries away from it. It's because war shows its evilness only when countries use all their financial and human resources to feed it. It then consumes all the benefits of man's hard work and suck their happiness by making societies incapable of survival. In past, when this threshold was reached, mostly two courses were taken to avoid wars. First, the direct way of citizens boycotting all ways to involve in wars personally. Or the second, and more effective way of convincing governments to avoid wars by removing causes which are bringing war upon the country.

(words: 175)


I hope it helps.
Regards.

Originally Posted by exclusively

What do you think, which question should be attempted first: Precis or Pair of Words/Corrections? What was your strategy in this particular paper?

& can we make rough outlines in all 12 papers prior to attempting our answers so that we can retain our answers from head to tail in headings & sub-headings?

Looking forward to hear you.
Thanks in anticipation

Originally Posted by wasxxm

Aoa. I have tried to put up my first ever precis. The precis of CE-2015 paper. Seniors may kindly review. Thanks in anticipation.

In studding the breakdowns of civilizations, the writer has subscribed to the conclusion – no new discovery! – that war has proved to have been the proximate cause of the breakdown of every civilization which is known for certain to have broken down, in so far as it has been possible to analyze the nature of these breakdowns and to account for their occurrence. Like other evils war has no insidious way of appearing not intolerable until it has secured such a stranglehold upon the lives of its addicts that they no longer have the power to escape from its grip when its deadlines has become manifest. In the early stages of civilization’s growth, the cost of wars in suffering and destruction might seem to be exceeded by the benefits occurring from the wining of wealth and power and the cultivation of the “military virtues” ; and, in this phase of history, states have often found themselves able to indulge in war with one another with something like impunity even for the defeated party. War does not begin to reveal its malignity till the war making society has begun to increase its economic ability to exploit physical nature and its political ability to organize manpower; but, as soon as this happens, the god of war to which the growing society has long since been dedicated proves himself a Moloch by devouring an ever larger share of the increasing fruits of man’s industry and intelligence in the process of taking an ever larger toll of life and happiness; and, when the society’s growth in efficiency reaches a point at which it becomes capable of mobilizing a lethal quantum of its energies and resources for military use then war reveals itself as being a cancer which is bound to prove fatal to its victim unless he can cut it out and cast it from him, since its malignant tissues have now learnt to grow faster that the healthy tissues on which they feed.
In the past when this danger-point in the history of the relations between war and civilization has been reached and recognized, serious efforts have sometimes been made to get rid of war in time to save society, and these endeavors have been apt to take one or other of two alternative directions. Salvation cannot, of course, be sought anywhere except in the working of the consciences of individual human beings; but individuals have a choice between trying to achieve their aims through direct action as private citizens and trying to achieve then through indirect action as citizen of states. Personal refusal to lend himself in any way to any war waged by his state for any purpose and in any circumstances is a line of attack against the institution of war that is likely to appeal to an ardent and self-sacrificing nature; by comparison, the alternative peace strategy of seeking to persuade and accustom governments to combine in jointly resisting aggression when it comes and in trying to remove its stimuli beforehand may seem a circuitous and unheroic line of attack on the problem. Yet experience up to date indicates unmistakably, in the present writer’s opinion, that the second of these two hard roads is by far the more promising.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Breakdown of civilizations due to wars and its remedies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Precis:
In writer’s opinion war has caused breakdown of many civilizations. In the early civilizations, wars have proved to be more of monetary and military value than the devastations occurred. The defeated were seldom crushed to extinction. It is when the aggressors advanced their military equipment and developed powerful disciplined armies, the full scale of destructions of wars became clear, capable of extinguishing entire civilizations.

In history, two approaches have been pursued by individuals to circumvent war and its menaces. Acting as a private citizen, one approach is to distance oneself from the war waging activities of the state. The other, rather peace making approach, is to strive to make the government join united front against aggression. According to the author, the second approach may seem lengthy and unappealing, yet the experience proves it more fruitful.