Roger!
 

I agree! My Eng facilitator is second to none but may be I need to trust on my skills and potential to fight, instead of let the sinister intriguing my mind.

Br
SE

[QUOTE=Sarmad Ehsan;523136]I agree! My Eng facilitator is second to none but may be I need to trust on my skills and potential to fight, instead of let the sinister intriguing my mind.

Br
SE[/QUOTE]
yes ,it is a game of nerves .Just be relax

Point out mistakes !
 

[B][SIZE="3"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]
Q # 1... Make a précis of the given passage and suggest a suitable heading: (20 + 5)2006
Total words ---358/3=119 near to 120

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

It was not so in Greece, where philosophers professed less, and undertook more. Parmenides pondered nebulously over the mystery of knowledge; but the pre-Socratics kept their eyes with fair consistency upon the firm earth, and sought to ferret out its secrets by observation and experience, rather than to create it by exuding dialectic; there were not many introverts among the Greeks. Picture Democritus, the Laughing Philosopher; would he not be perilous company for the dessicated scholastics who have made the disputes about the reality of the external world take the place of medieval discourses on the number of angles that could sit on the point of a pin? Picture Thales, who met the challenge that philosophers were numskulls by “cornering the market” and making a fortune in a year. Picture Anaxagoras, who did the work of Darwin for the Greeks and turned Pericles form a wire-pulling politician into a thinker and a statesman, Picture old Socrates, unafraid of the sun or the stars, gaily corrupting young men and overturning governments; what would he have done to these bespectacled seedless philosophasters who now litter the court of the once great Queen? To Plato, as to these virile predecessors, epistemology was but the vestibule of philosophy, akin to the preliminaries of love; it was pleasant enough for a while, but it was far from the creative consummation that drew wisdom’s lover on. Here and there in the shorter dialogues, the Master dallied amorously with the problems of perception, thought, and knowledge; but in his more spacious moments he spread his vision over larger fields, built himself ideal states and brooded over the nature and destiny of man. And finally in Aristotle philosophy was honoured in all her boundless scope and majesty; all her mansions were explored and made beautiful with order; here every problem found a place and every science brought its toll to wisdom. These men knew that the function of philosophy was not to bury herself in the obscure retreats of epistemology, but to come forth bravely into every realm of inquiry, and gather up all knowledge for the coordination and illumination of human character and human life.



[B][U][COLOR="DarkGreen"][SIZE="3"]Title of precis;Evolution and disciplining of philosophy . [/SIZE][/COLOR][/U][/B]



Greece scholars were scientists like parmendies.But pre-scocrates did not frame new principles instead restricted over the prevalent view of static earth.Democritus challenged the biased theories regarding space of these scholars whereas Thales satirizes philosophers who sell their baseless theories. Anaxagoras influenced Pericles to become a philosopher .Socrates found new horizons of space knowledge but could not mend the old philosophies.Plato views that these baseless theories could not convinced the new generations due to lack of creativity.Plato was able to formulate new ideals based on scientific process of philosophy .Aristotle pioneered all the branches of human nature by verifying the laws of nature not by dumping problems rather exploring them;they knew that mysteries should be resolved by finding the hidden truths.


[B][U][SIZE="3"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]Total words 120 [/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/B]

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF POPULATION IN A SOCIETY


Ignoring population question is a deplorable symptom of lack of honesty in sociology. Obviously in the absence of natural checks, state alone can check the growth of population. As an increase in population affects the standard of living, the sensible rich will practise birth-control whereas the foolish and immoral poor continue increasing burden on natural resources. The politicians, the army and the revolutionists are against population-control as they want more and more rural votes, fighters and rebels respectively to serve their interests. Against population-control, they use a semi-religious bias that unchecked procreation is man's natural right. In this regard the socialists have a mistaken view as it is not hopelessness but a revolutionary fervour which is the force behind revolutions. [128]


[url]http://www.cssforum.com.pk/467121-post208.html[/url]

@Xuhaib you should not use word ''foolish ''

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Precis(1994) please evaluate critically.
[B]Original:[/B][/COLOR][/B]
"Education does not develop autonomously: it tends to be a mirror of society and is seldom at the cutting edge of social change. It is retrospective even conservative, since it teaches the young what others have experienced and discovered about the world. The future of education will be shaped not by educators, but by changes in demography, technology and the family. Its ends--to prepare students to live and work in their society--are likely to remain stable, but its means are likely to change dramatically"
"Schools, colleges and universities will be redefined in fundamental ways,: who is educated, how they are educated, where they are educated--all are due for upheaval. But their primary responsibility will be much the same as it is now: to teach knowledge of languages, sciences, history, government, economics, geography, mathematics and threats, as well as the skills necessary to understand today,s problems and to use its technologies. In the decades ahead, there will be a solid consensus that, as Horseman, an American educator, wrote in 1846: " Intelligence is a primary ingredients in the wealth of nations". In recognition of the power of its idea, education will be directed purposefully to develop intelligence as a vital national resource.

"Even as nations recognize thee value of education in creating human capital, the institutions that provide education will come under increasing strain. State systems of education may not survive demographic and technological change. Political upheavals in unstable regions and the ease of international travel will ensure a steady flow of immigrants, legal and illegal, from poor nations to rich ones. As tides of i immigration sweep across the rich world, the receiving have a choice; they can assimilate the newcomers to the home culture, or they can expect a proliferation of cultures within their borders. Early this century proliferation of cultures within their borders. Early this century state systems assimilated newcomers and taught them how to ? Today social science frowns on assimilation, seeing it as a form of cultural coercion so state systems of education are likely to eschew cultural imposition. In effect, the state schools may encourage trends that raise doubts about the purpose or necessity of a state system of education." (Diane Revlon)[B]( words count: 357)[/B]

[COLOR="Purple"][B]Precis:[/B][/COLOR]
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Title: Impact of modernization on Education
Education in the modern age.
Education and Modern society[/COLOR][/B]
Educational development is not independent. It reflects society.It is rarely at advanced position of societal change. In fact, it is traditional, because it tells us what has been unearthed in this world so far. The future of education is heavily dependent on the gradual development of the world. However, its basic end would not change. Intellectuals believe that the core element of the nation's wealth is brilliance, and brilliance is dependent on education. Furthermore, even having recognized the importance of education, educational institution would come under stress, because of the stream of migration from less developed countries to the first world countries. Nowadays social assimilation is being considered as suppression of culture, so state's educational system appears to discourage the cultural mingling.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][B](word count: 357/3=119,122)[/B][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=SADIA SHAFIQ;523352][B][SIZE="3"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]
Q # 1... Make a précis of the given passage and suggest a suitable heading: (20 + 5)2006
Total words ---358/3=119 near to 120

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

It was not so in Greece, where philosophers professed less, and undertook more. Parmenides pondered nebulously over the mystery of knowledge; but the pre-Socratics kept their eyes with fair consistency upon the firm earth, and sought to ferret out its secrets by observation and experience, rather than to create it by exuding dialectic; there were not many introverts among the Greeks. Picture Democritus, the Laughing Philosopher; would he not be perilous company for the dessicated scholastics who have made the disputes about the reality of the external world take the place of medieval discourses on the number of angles that could sit on the point of a pin? Picture Thales, who met the challenge that philosophers were numskulls by “cornering the market” and making a fortune in a year. Picture Anaxagoras, who did the work of Darwin for the Greeks and turned Pericles form a wire-pulling politician into a thinker and a statesman, Picture old Socrates, unafraid of the sun or the stars, gaily corrupting young men and overturning governments; what would he have done to these bespectacled seedless philosophasters who now litter the court of the once great Queen? To Plato, as to these virile predecessors, epistemology was but the vestibule of philosophy, akin to the preliminaries of love; it was pleasant enough for a while, but it was far from the creative consummation that drew wisdom’s lover on. Here and there in the shorter dialogues, the Master dallied amorously with the problems of perception, thought, and knowledge; but in his more spacious moments he spread his vision over larger fields, built himself ideal states and brooded over the nature and destiny of man. And finally in Aristotle philosophy was honoured in all her boundless scope and majesty; all her mansions were explored and made beautiful with order; here every problem found a place and every science brought its toll to wisdom. These men knew that the function of philosophy was not to bury herself in the obscure retreats of epistemology, but to come forth bravely into every realm of inquiry, and gather up all knowledge for the coordination and illumination of human character and human life.



[B][U][COLOR="DarkGreen"][SIZE="3"]Title of precis;Evolution and disciplining of philosophy . [/SIZE][/COLOR][/U][/B]



Greece scholars were scientists like parmendies.But pre-scocrates did not frame new principles instead restricted over the prevalent view of static earth.Democritus challenged the biased theories regarding space of these scholars whereas Thales satirizes philosophers who sell their baseless theories. Anaxagoras influenced Pericles to become a philosopher .Socrates found new horizons of space knowledge but could not mend the old philosophies.Plato views that these baseless theories could not convinced the new generations due to lack of creativity.Plato was able to formulate new ideals based on scientific process of philosophy .Aristotle pioneered all the branches of human nature by verifying the laws of nature not by dumping problems rather exploring them;they knew that mysteries should be resolved by finding the hidden truths.


[B][U][SIZE="3"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]Total words 120 [/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/B][/QUOTE]

MS Sadia Shafique, you tried ur best for precis...but...i dare to say taht u have missed the theme of passage and disfigured it
plz, take a second look at origional passage and read my precis
Here it is:

Title: A critique on Greek Philosophers

Greek philosophers were self-inventors, so remained unclear about the true knowledge. However, they were unanimous, despite their scientific approach, towards the earth as static, yet never exchanged conflicting results, although they expressed much their views that became the base of multiple discourses in medieval times. To falsify their stupidity, they gained the market control to make money in short time and even they turned the politicians into thinkers. They did nothing worthwhile for other philosophers and remained far from creative science but were fixed in epistemology and gave the notions of ideal states and human doom. And finally, Aristotle managed all the previous knowledge and made the philosophy as the subject of inquiry and coordination of knowledge for human benefits.

[QUOTE=Disciple of Aristotle;524377]MS Sadia Shafique, you tried ur best for precis...but...i dare to say taht u have missed the theme of passage and disfigured it
plz, take a second look at origional passage and read my precis
Here it is:

Title: A critique on Greek Philosophers

Greek philosophers were self-inventors, so remained unclear about the true knowledge. However, they were unanimous, despite their scientific approach, towards the earth as static, yet never exchanged conflicting results, although they expressed much their views that became the base of multiple discourses in medieval times. [B][COLOR="DarkGreen"] To falsify their stupidity, they gained the market control to make money in short time and even they turned the politicians into thinkers[/COLOR][/B]. They did nothing worthwhile for other philosophers and remained far from creative science but were fixed in epistemology and gave the notions of ideal states and human doom. And finally, Aristotle managed all the previous knowledge and made the philosophy as the subject of inquiry and coordination of knowledge for human benefits.[/QUOTE]

You have missed many points of precis .The writer has mentioned socrates and plato who disciplined the branch of philosophy . Well your title is best but my title is not bad too.But in presentation ,one should summarize the points not analyzes them. I think so you have analyzed them .If I am wrong ,then please correct me .criticism is always appreciated .Highlighted line is best in overall para

my points are not missing, but the passage is summarised in true sense, in precis we dont need the examplifications and mentioning of name. in the orignal passage, writer dose not say that "Parmenides was scientist", and he does nat say that" Thales satrizes the philosophers who sell their philosophy"

where the writer said??? Democritus challenged the space of Greek philosopher??

Now plz tell which point i missed in the precis,,,i' ll justify you the point

best regards
Ms. Sadia Shafiq

[QUOTE=seher bano;523881][B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Precis(1994) please evaluate critically.
[B]Original:[/B][/COLOR][/B]
"Education does not develop autonomously[B][SIZE="4"][COLOR="DarkGreen"]:[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] it tends to be a mirror of society and is seldom at the cutting edge of social change. It is retrospective even conservative, since it teaches the young what others have experienced and discovered about the world. The future of education will be shaped not by educators, but by changes in demography, technology and the family. Its ends--to prepare students to live and work in their society--are likely to remain stable, but its means are likely to change dramatically"
"Schools, colleges and universities will be redefined in fundamental ways,: who is educated, how they are educated, where they are educated--all are due for upheaval. But their primary responsibility will be much the same as it is now: to teach knowledge of languages, sciences, history, government, economics, geography, mathematics and threats, as well as the skills necessary to understand today,s problems and to use its technologies. In the decades ahead, there will be a solid consensus that, as Horseman, an American educator, wrote in 1846: " Intelligence is a primary ingredients in the wealth of nations". In recognition of the power of its idea, education will be directed purposefully to develop intelligence as a vital national resource.

"Even as nations recognize thee value of education in creating human capital, the institutions that provide education will come under increasing strain. State systems of education may not survive demographic and technological change. Political upheavals in unstable regions and the ease of international travel will ensure a steady flow of immigrants, legal and illegal, from poor nations to rich ones. As tides of i immigration sweep across the rich world, the receiving have a choice; they can assimilate the newcomers to the home culture, or they can expect a proliferation of cultures within their borders. Early this century proliferation of cultures within their borders. Early this century state systems assimilated newcomers and taught them how to ? Today social science frowns on assimilation, seeing it as a form of cultural coercion so state systems of education are likely to eschew cultural imposition. In effect, the state schools may encourage trends that raise doubts about the purpose or necessity of a state system of education." (Diane Revlon)[B]( words count: 357)[/B]

[COLOR="Purple"][B]Precis:[/B][/COLOR]
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Title: Impact of modernization on Education
Education in the modern age.
Education and Modern society[/COLOR][/B]
Educational development is not independent. It reflects society.It is rarely at advanced position of societal change. In fact, it is traditional, because it tells us what has been unearthed in this world so far. The future of education is heavily dependent on the gradual development of the world. However, its basic end would not change. Intellectuals believe that the core element of the nation's wealth is brilliance, and brilliance is dependent on education. Furthermore, even having recognized the importance of education, educational institution would come under stress, because of the stream of migration from less developed countries to the first world countries. Nowadays social assimilation is being considered as suppression of culture, so state's educational system appears to discourage the cultural mingling.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][B](word count: 357/3=119,122)[/B][/COLOR][/QUOTE]


The green highlighted colon is connective ,it implies writer is continuing the old sentence adding new dimension .you did not comprehend it .

What writer endorsed is educational system is developed by environmental change in order to equip new generation how to survive with social change ..

write again dear :)


..