Comprehension attempt css-2014, please check
 

[B][COLOR="blue"][SIZE="2"]Q.3 Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow. Use your own language.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

In the height of the Enlightenment, men influenced by the new political theories of the era launched two of the largest revolutions in history. These two conflicts, on two separate continents, were both initially successful in forming new forms of government. And yet, the two conflicts, though merely a decade apart, had radically different conclusions. How do two wars inspired by more or less the same ideals end up so completely different? Why was the American Revolution largely a success and the French Revolution largely a failure? Historians have pointed to myriad reasons—far too various to be listed here. However, the most frequently cited are worth mentioning. For one, the American Revolution was far removed from the Old World; that is, since it was on a different continent, other European nations did not attempt to interfere with it.

However, in the French Revolution, there were immediate cries for war from neighboring nations. Early on, for instance, the ousted king attempted to flee to neighboring Austria and the army waiting there. The newly formed French Republic also warred with Belgium, and a conflict with Britain loomed. Thus, the French had the burden not only of winning a revolution but also defending it from outside. The Americans simply had to win a revolution.

Secondly, the American Revolution seemed to have a better chance for success from the get-go, due to the fact that Americans already saw themselves as something other than British subjects. Thus, there was already a uniquely American character, so, there was not as loud a cry to preserve the British way of life. In France, several thousands of people still supported the king, largely because the king was seen as an essential part of French life. And when the king was first ousted and then killed, some believed that character itself was corrupted. Remember, the Americans did not oust a king or kill him—they merely separated from him.

Finally, there is a general agreement that the French were not as unified as the Americans, who, for the most part, put aside their political differences until after they had already formed a new nation. The French, despite their Tennis Court Oath, could not do so. Infighting led to inner turmoil, civil war, and eventually the Reign of Terror, in which political dissidents were executed in large numbers. Additionally, the French people themselves were not unified. The nation had so much stratification that it was impossible to unite all of them—the workers, the peasants, the middle-class, the nobles, the clergy—into one cause. And the attempts to do so under a new religion, the Divine Cult of Reason, certainly did not help. The Americans, remember, never attempted to change the society at large; rather, they merely attempted to change the government.

[B][COLOR="blue"][SIZE="2"]1. Why and how did the Reign of Terror happen?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
The reign of terror took place as a result of killing of king; furthermore it added civil war, mutiny and execution of political opponents during the French revolution.

[B][COLOR="blue"][SIZE="2"]2. In what ways does the author suggest that the American Revolution was easier to complete than the French Revolution?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
Author’s outlook suggests that American Revolution was easier than the French revolution because American Revolution was free from any type of interference of other nations and contrary to that French revolution was burdened with intervention of European countries.

[B][COLOR="blue"][SIZE="2"]3. Of the challenges mentioned facing the French revolutionaries, which do you thing had the greatest impact on their inability to complete a successful revolution? Why?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
French Revolution failed to get success because it was not only intervened by other European nations with emerged conflicts with British, but also it faced internal civil war and mutiny due to killing of king; furthermore, the French people themselves were not unified to complete revolution successfully.

[B][COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="2"]4. Of the strengths mentioned aiding the American revolutionaries, which do you thing had the greatest impact on their ability to complete a successful revolution? Why?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]
The unity of American people had the greatest impact on their ability to complete a successful revolution.

some one make the precise of this paragraph
 

In the height of the Enlightenment, men influenced by the new political theories of the era launched two of the largest revolutions in history. These two conflicts, on two separate continents, were both initially successful in forming new forms of government. And yet, the two conflicts, though merely a decade apart, had radically different conclusions. How do two wars inspired by more or less the same ideals end up so completely different? Why was the American Revolution largely a success and the French Revolution largely a failure? Historians have pointed to myriad reasons—far too various to be listed here. However, the most frequently cited are worth mentioning. For one, the American Revolution was far removed from the Old World; that is, since it was on a different continent, other European nations did not attempt to interfere with it.
However, in the French Revolution, there were immediate cries for war from neighboring nations. Early on, for instance, the ousted king attempted to flee to neighboring Austria and the army waiting there. The newly formed French Republic also warred with Belgium, and a conflict with Britain loomed. Thus, the French had the burden not only of winning a revolution but also defending it from outside. The Americans simply had to win a revolution.
Secondly, the American Revolution seemed to have a better chance for success from the get-go, due to the fact that Americans already saw themselves as something other than British subjects. Thus, there was already a uniquely American character, so, there was not as loud a cry to preserve the British way of life. In France, several thousands of people still supported the king, largely because the king was seen as an essential part of French life. And when the king was first ousted and then killed, some believed that character itself was corrupted. Remember, the Americans did not oust a king or kill him—they merely separated from him.
Finally, there is a general agreement that the French were not as unified as the Americans, who, for the most part, put aside their political differences until after they had already formed a new nation. The French, despite their Tennis Court Oath, could not do so. Infighting led to inner turmoil, civil war, and eventually the Reign of Terror, in which political dissidents were executed in large numbers. Additionally, the French people themselves were not unified. The nation had so much stratification that it was impossible to unite all of them—the workers, the peasants, the middle-class, the nobles, the clergy—into one cause. And the attempts to do so under a new religion, the Divine Cult of Reason, certainly did not help. The Americans, remember, never attempted to change the society at large; rather, they merely attempted to change the government.

[QUOTE=saharmair;1119048]In the height of the Enlightenment, men influenced by the new political theories of the era launched two of the largest revolutions in history. These two conflicts, on two separate continents, were both initially successful in forming new forms of government. And yet, the two conflicts, though merely a decade apart, had radically different conclusions. How do two wars inspired by more or less the same ideals end up so completely different? Why was the American Revolution largely a success and the French Revolution largely a failure? Historians have pointed to myriad reasons—far too various to be listed here. However, the most frequently cited are worth mentioning. For one, the American Revolution was far removed from the Old World; that is, since it was on a different continent, other European nations did not attempt to interfere with it.
However, in the French Revolution, there were immediate cries for war from neighboring nations. Early on, for instance, the ousted king attempted to flee to neighboring Austria and the army waiting there. The newly formed French Republic also warred with Belgium, and a conflict with Britain loomed. Thus, the French had the burden not only of winning a revolution but also defending it from outside. The Americans simply had to win a revolution.
Secondly, the American Revolution seemed to have a better chance for success from the get-go, due to the fact that Americans already saw themselves as something other than British subjects. Thus, there was already a uniquely American character, so, there was not as loud a cry to preserve the British way of life. In France, several thousands of people still supported the king, largely because the king was seen as an essential part of French life. And when the king was first ousted and then killed, some believed that character itself was corrupted. Remember, the Americans did not oust a king or kill him—they merely separated from him.
Finally, there is a general agreement that the French were not as unified as the Americans, who, for the most part, put aside their political differences until after they had already formed a new nation. The French, despite their Tennis Court Oath, could not do so. Infighting led to inner turmoil, civil war, and eventually the Reign of Terror, in which political dissidents were executed in large numbers. Additionally, the French people themselves were not unified. The nation had so much stratification that it was impossible to unite all of them—the workers, the peasants, the middle-class, the nobles, the clergy—into one cause. And the attempts to do so under a new religion, the Divine Cult of Reason, certainly did not help. The Americans, remember, never attempted to change the society at large; rather, they merely attempted to change the government.[/QUOTE]

[B][CENTER]Comparing Enlightenment’s revolutions[/CENTER][/B]
Enlightenment era led to two historic revolutions on two separate continents. Though their ideals were similar, the outcomes of these revolutions were very different. Historians give varied opinions that why American Revolution succeeded whilst French failed. First, America was isolated in New World whereas French had to defend their revolution from both within and outside. Second cause is that Americans had already developed a unique identity and for them it was just a regime change but for French, King was a part of their identity. Finally, while Americans put aside their political differences and united for revolution, the French couldn’t do so. Their dissent among themselves led to death of many. Not only were the revolutionaries divided but their society was also divided into many groups. French’s attempt to unite society under Divine Cult of Reason also went unsuccessful.
Words: 139

[QUOTE=saharmair;1119048]In the height of the Enlightenment, men influenced by the new political theories of the era launched two of the largest revolutions in history. These two conflicts, on two separate continents, were both initially successful in forming new forms of government. And yet, the two conflicts, though merely a decade apart, had radically different conclusions. How do two wars inspired by more or less the same ideals end up so completely different? Why was the American Revolution largely a success and the French Revolution largely a failure? Historians have pointed to myriad reasons—far too various to be listed here. However, the most frequently cited are worth mentioning. For one, the American Revolution was far removed from the Old World; that is, since it was on a different continent, other European nations did not attempt to interfere with it.
However, in the French Revolution, there were immediate cries for war from neighboring nations. Early on, for instance, the ousted king attempted to flee to neighboring Austria and the army waiting there. The newly formed French Republic also warred with Belgium, and a conflict with Britain loomed. Thus, the French had the burden not only of winning a revolution but also defending it from outside. The Americans simply had to win a revolution.
Secondly, the American Revolution seemed to have a better chance for success from the get-go, due to the fact that Americans already saw themselves as something other than British subjects. Thus, there was already a uniquely American character, so, there was not as loud a cry to preserve the British way of life. In France, several thousands of people still supported the king, largely because the king was seen as an essential part of French life. And when the king was first ousted and then killed, some believed that character itself was corrupted. Remember, the Americans did not oust a king or kill him—they merely separated from him.
Finally, there is a general agreement that the French were not as unified as the Americans, who, for the most part, put aside their political differences until after they had already formed a new nation. The French, despite their Tennis Court Oath, could not do so. Infighting led to inner turmoil, civil war, and eventually the Reign of Terror, in which political dissidents were executed in large numbers. Additionally, the French people themselves were not unified. The nation had so much stratification that it was impossible to unite all of them—the workers, the peasants, the middle-class, the nobles, the clergy—into one cause. And the attempts to do so under a new religion, the Divine Cult of Reason, certainly did not help. The Americans, remember, never attempted to change the society at large; rather, they merely attempted to change the government.[/QUOTE]

Paragraph given for Preci are usually not this easy. They are difficult to comprehend, with lot of difficult vocab and complex sentences.

Can we quote examples in Comprehension question,or simply rewrite the statements from the original passage, into own words...?