Precis practice CE-2020
 

[B][U]Note:[/U][/B]
[B]1.[/B] All aspirants who are willing to practice Precis should post their precis here.
[B]2.[/B] Members and seniors are requested to assess the matter, since the ride is about to begin soon.
[B]3.[/B] Daily one precis should be posted by each member-aspirant to get the target.

[B][U][SIZE="3"]Original topic[/SIZE][/U][/B]

The official name of our species is homo sapiens; but there are many anthropologists who prefer to think of man as homo Faber-the smith, the maker of tools It would be possible. I think, to reconcile these two definitions in a third. If man is a knower and an efficient doer, it is only because he is also a talker In order to be Faber and Sapiens, Homo must first be loquax, the loquacious one. Without language we should merely be hairless chimpanzees. Indeed we should be some thing much worse. Possessed of a high IQ but no language, we should be like the Yahoos of Gulliver's Travels- Creatures too clever to be guided by instinct, too Self-centered to live in a state of animal grace, and therefore condemned forever, frustrated and malignant, between contented ape-hood and aspiring humanity. It was language that made possible the accumulation of knowledge and the broadcasting of information. It was language that permitted the expression of religious insight, the formulation of ethical ideals, the codification to laws, It was language, in a word, that turned us into human beings and gave birth to civilization.

[B][U][SIZE="3"]
Preci[/SIZE][/U][/B]

[B][CENTER][SIZE="4"]Title: Importance of language[/SIZE][/CENTER][/B]

Man without language would be an animal, an uncivilized and intelligent being. Language made him an intelligent being and the creator of tools. It enabled man to receive knowledge and information. It also provided him conduit to express his views, knowledge and information. Besides, it enabled him to enact ethical and legal norms. Therefore, language transformed an animal into a civilized and intellectual being.

Critical reviews are anticipated.

[QUOTE=The dream of rain;1107281][B][U][SIZE="3"]Original topic[/SIZE][/U][/B]

The official name of our species is homo sapiens; but there are many anthropologists who prefer to think of man as homo Faber-the smith, the maker of tools It would be possible. I think, to reconcile these two definitions in a third. If man is a knower and an efficient doer, it is only because he is also a talker In order to be Faber and Sapiens, Homo must first be loquax, the loquacious one. Without language we should merely be hairless chimpanzees. Indeed we should be some thing much worse. Possessed of a high IQ but no language, we should be like the Yahoos of Gulliver's Travels- Creatures too clever to be guided by instinct, too Self-centered to live in a state of animal grace, and therefore condemned forever, frustrated and malignant, between contented ape-hood and aspiring humanity. It was language that made possible the accumulation of knowledge and the broadcasting of information. It was language that permitted the expression of religious insight, the formulation of ethical ideals, the codification to laws, It was language, in a word, that turned us into human beings and gave birth to civilization.

[B][U][SIZE="3"]
Preci[/SIZE][/U][/B]

[B][CENTER][SIZE="4"]Title: Importance of language[/SIZE][/CENTER][/B]

Man without language would be an animal, an uncivilized and intelligent being. Language made him an intelligent being and the creator of tools. It enabled man to receive knowledge and information. It also provided him conduit to express his views, knowledge and information. Besides, it enabled him to enact ethical and legal norms. Therefore, language transformed an animal into a civilized and intellectual being.

Critical reviews are anticipated.[/QUOTE]
Analysis
First, write pecis words too
second, your idea and topic are fine but you have repeated some words like knowledge and inforamtion.
Third, an animal, uncivilized and intelligent being. To me just single article; and, word intellignet does not fit here>Rest is fine. Hope you understand bro..
knowledge and information

[QUOTE=Innocent Hafeez;1107283]Analysis
First, write pecis words too
second, your idea and topic are fine but you have repeated some words like knowledge and inforamtion.
Third, an animal, uncivilized and intelligent being. To me just single article; and, word intellignet does not fit here>Rest is fine. Hope you understand bro..
knowledge and information[/QUOTE]

Thanks,
The word "intelligent" is mistakenly added. It was "unintelligent." But i preferred to omit it while uploading here.
your thoughts are welcomed.
stick to the thread!

[B][SIZE="3"]Original paragraph[/SIZE][/B]

One of the most ominous and discreditable symptoms of the want of candour in present-day sociology is the deliberate neglect of the population question. It is or should be transparently clear that if the State is resolved, on humanitarian grounds, to inhibit the operation of natural selection, some rational regulation of population, both as regards quantity and quality, is
imperatively necessary. There is no self-acting adjustment, apart from starvation, of numbers to the means of subsistence. If all natural checks are removed, a population in advance of the optimum number will be produced, and maintained at the cost of a reduction in the standard of living. When this pressure begins to be felt, that section of the population which is capable of reflection, and which has a standard of living which may be lost, will voluntarily restrict its numbers, even to the point of failing to replace deaths by an equivalent number of new births; while the underworld, which always exists in every civilised society the failures and misfits and derelicts, moral and physical will exercise no restraint, and will be a constantly increasing drain upon the national resources. The population will thus be recruited, in a very undue proportion, by those strata of society which do not possess the qualities of useful citizens.

The importance of the problem would seem to be sufficiently obvious. But politicians know that the subject is unpopular. The unborn have no votes. Employers like a surplus of labour, which can be drawn upon when trade is good. Militarists want as much food for powder as they can get. Revolutionists instinctively oppose any real remedy for social evils; they know that every unwanted child is a potential insurgent. All three can appeal to a quasi-religious prejudice, resting apparently on the ancient theory of natural rights, which were supposed to include the right of unlimited procreation. This objection is now chiefly urged by celibate or childless priests; but it is held with such fanatical vehemence that the fear of losing the votes which they control is a welcome excuse for the baser sort of politician to shelve the subject as inopportune. The Socialist calculation is probably erroneous; for experience has shown that it is aspiration, not desperation, that makes revolutions.


[B][SIZE="3"]Title:[/SIZE][/B] [B][SIZE="3"][U]Negligence of population problem[/U][/SIZE][/B]

The problem of population faced negligence. However, a logical regulation of population was required, if the state was to resolve the problem. Because when natural regulations were effaced, population grew that not only lowered the lifestyle of the section of the population, which felt its pressure, but also reduced natural resources. Moreover, the problem of population remained significant. But, it received no ears from political leaders, due to the unpopularity of the issue and their fear of giving up vote bank. Thus, the issue remained sidelined. (words: 86)

Members are requested to point mistakes.
Thanks!

Title: Role of Language in Civilization
 

A man is knower and doer only because of being talker. So, it is better to call him Homo Loquas. It was language that differentiated him from animals and allowed to convey his thoughts. Language enabled him acquire knowledge and invent tools. By virtue of language, he developed religious and moral insight. It was language that gave birth to Civilization.
(approximately 58 words)

[QUOTE=The dream of rain;1107302][B][SIZE="3"]Original paragraph[/SIZE][/B]

One of the most ominous and discreditable symptoms of the want of candour in present-day sociology is the deliberate neglect of the population question. It is or should be transparently clear that if the State is resolved, on humanitarian grounds, to inhibit the operation of natural selection, some rational regulation of population, both as regards quantity and quality, is
imperatively necessary. There is no self-acting adjustment, apart from starvation, of numbers to the means of subsistence. If all natural checks are removed, a population in advance of the optimum number will be produced, and maintained at the cost of a reduction in the standard of living. When this pressure begins to be felt, that section of the population which is capable of reflection, and which has a standard of living which may be lost, will voluntarily restrict its numbers, even to the point of failing to replace deaths by an equivalent number of new births; while the underworld, which always exists in every civilised society the failures and misfits and derelicts, moral and physical will exercise no restraint, and will be a constantly increasing drain upon the national resources. The population will thus be recruited, in a very undue proportion, by those strata of society which do not possess the qualities of useful citizens.

The importance of the problem would seem to be sufficiently obvious. But politicians know that the subject is unpopular. The unborn have no votes. Employers like a surplus of labour, which can be drawn upon when trade is good. Militarists want as much food for powder as they can get. Revolutionists instinctively oppose any real remedy for social evils; they know that every unwanted child is a potential insurgent. All three can appeal to a quasi-religious prejudice, resting apparently on the ancient theory of natural rights, which were supposed to include the right of unlimited procreation. This objection is now chiefly urged by celibate or childless priests; but it is held with such fanatical vehemence that the fear of losing the votes which they control is a welcome excuse for the baser sort of politician to shelve the subject as inopportune. The Socialist calculation is probably erroneous; for experience has shown that it is aspiration, not desperation, that makes revolutions.


[B][SIZE="3"]Title:[/SIZE][/B] [B][SIZE="3"][U]Negligence of population problem[/U][/SIZE][/B]

The problem of population faced negligence. However, a logical regulation of population was required, if the state was to resolve the problem. Because when natural regulations were effaced, population grew that not only lowered the lifestyle of the section of the population, which felt its pressure, but also reduced natural resources. Moreover, the problem of population remained significant. But, it received no ears from political leaders, due to the unpopularity of the issue and their fear of giving up vote bank. Thus, the issue remained sidelined. (words: 86)

Members are requested to point mistakes.
Thanks![/QUOTE]

Dear, yor precis is finer than mine(given beow) but our word count are not up to the requirement of the passage. To me, this sort of passage can be written in both present and past forms. Well, you can give your own opinion about my write-up
Title: Ignoring population growth
The subject of population growth has failed to draw attention and is being intentionally overlooked by society. Especially, religious clerics, politicians and others consider the problem pointless and absurd for some obvious reasons. They consider every step to control and manage human population as an obstacle to their vested interests. This sort of approach has, in turn, severely hampered individuals’ progress. Burgeoning population is a matter of serious concern and if left unchecked and some logical measures are not taken, it will risk socio-economic development of human beings and make their life vulnerable.
Words count: 95

[QUOTE=Pakistani Physicist;1107331]A man is knower and doer only because of being talker. So, it is better to call him Homo Loquas. It was language that differentiated him from animals and allowed to convey his thoughts. Language enabled him acquire knowledge and invent tools. By virtue of language, he developed religious and moral insight. It was language that gave birth to Civilization.
(approximately 58 words)[/QUOTE]

Sir, your idea is clear but you have frequently repeated word language. Also, your title does not match as there is relation between language and man. Hope you get it.

[QUOTE=Innocent Hafeez;1107353]Dear, yor precis is finer than mine(given beow) but our word count are not up to the requirement of the passage. To me, this sort of passage can be written in both present and past forms. Well, you can give your own opinion about my write-up
Title: Ignoring population growth
The subject of population growth has failed to draw attention and is being intentionally overlooked by society. Especially, religious clerics, politicians and others consider the problem pointless and absurd for some obvious reasons. They consider every step to control and manage human population as an obstacle to their vested interests. This sort of approach has, in turn, severely hampered individuals’ progress. Burgeoning population is a matter of serious concern and if left unchecked and some logical measures are not taken, it will risk socio-economic development of human beings and make their life vulnerable.
Words count: 95[/QUOTE]

Brother, to me, you have get the gist of the topic. But, some points seem alien to the topic, like [B]"risk socio-economic development of human beings and make their life vulnerable."[/B] (i dont see anywhere in the original passage that talk about "human beings."
Be specific to it.
and here, [B]" religious clerics, politicians and [U]others[/U] consider,"[/B] the word "others" shows getting off of the topic. Don't add foreign senses to the preci.
Hope it helps!
P.S. i prefer to write preci in the Past.

Check my Precis 2014
 

This is the original paragraph, [INDENT]Probably the only protection for contemporary man is to discover how to use his intelligence in the service of love and kindness. The training of human intelligence must include the simultaneous development of the empathic capacity. Only in this way can intelligence be made an instrument of social morality and responsibility — and thereby increase the chances of survival.

The need to produce human beings with trained morally sensitive intelligence is essentially a challenge to educators and educational institutions. Traditionally, the realm of social morality was left to religion and the churches as guardians or custodians. But their failure to fulfill this responsibility and their yielding to the seductive lures of the men of wealth and! pomp and power and documented by the history of the last two thousand years and have now resulted in the irrelevant “God Is Dead” theological rhetoric The more pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with the fundamental problems of social morality. For them simplistic Machiavellianism must remain the guiding principle of their decisions-power is morality, morality is power. This oversimplification increases the chances of nuclear devastation. We must therefore hope that educators and educational institutions have the capacity, the commitment and the time to instill moral sensitivity as an integral part of the complex pattern of function human intelligence. Some way must be found in the training of human beings to give them the assurance to love, the security to be kind. and the integrity required for a functional empathy.
[/INDENT]

[B]Precis is here [/B]
[INDENT]Survival of humans is dependent upon the wise use of empathic intelligence. Each man must teach morality that could bring love and kindness in society. Teachers are facing a challenge that how could they teach morality to students. Religious clerics were responsible for teaching morality in the past but they were corrupted by social evils. Moreover, pragmatic man have no time to think about morality they use power to achieve everything even they could cause dangerous problems ; while, at the same time, teacher have ample time to educate students about morality that would ensure the survival of human beings.
[/INDENT]
Title of prices is [B]" Morality is key to the survival of man"[/B]