Precis Writing Exercise No. 71/80
Checking Fee For This Exercise: $1
Total Marks: 100Time Allowed: 3:00 Hours
Q.1. Make a precis of the following passage in about 250 words. (20)
The essence of poetry that it deals with events which concern a large number of people and can be grasped not as immediate personal experience but as matter known largely from heresy and presented in simplified and often abstract forms. It is thus the antithesis of all poetry which deals with the special, individual activity of the self and tries to present this as specially and as individually as it can. The poet who deals with public themes may himself be affected, even deeply, by contemporary events at some point in his own being, but to see them in their breadth and depth he must rely largely on what he hears from other men and from mass instruments of communication. From the start of his impulse to write about them is different from any impulse to write about his own affairs. It may be just as strong and just as compelling, but it is not of the same kind. He has to give his own version of something which millions of others may share with him, and however individual he may wish to be, he cannot avoid relying to a large extent on much that he knows only from second hand.
Fundamentally this may not matter, for after all what else did Shakespeare do: but the political poet does not construct an imaginary past; he attempts to grasp and interpret a vast present. Between him and his subject there is a gap which can never completely cross, and all his attempts to make events part of himself must be to some extent hampered by recalcitrant elements in them, which he does not understand or cannot assimilate or find irrelevant to his creative task. In such poetry selection which is indispensable to all art, has to be made from an unusually large field of possibilities and guided by an exacting sense of what really matters and what does not. On one side he may try to include too much and lose himself in issues where he is not imaginatively at home, on the other side he may see some huge event merely from a private angle which need not mean much to others. Political poetry oscillates between these extremes, and its history in our time has been largely attempts to make the best of one or the other of them or to see what compromises can be made between them.
Q.2. Make a precis of the following passage in about 250 words. (20)
Year 1972
Up to a point the second German War resembled the first. Each began with a German bid for power which almost succeeded in spite of the opposition of France and Great Britain. In each the United State came to the rescue after years of neutrality. Each ended with a German defeat. But the differences were easier to see than the resemblances. The powers were differently grouped.
Italy and Japan were on the German side, Russia was neutral until the Germans attacked across what had been, to begin with, Poland and Baltic States. The second war lasted even longer than the other. It pressed harder on the civilian population. After a period of restraint, perhaps, intended to conciliate American opinion, both sides dropped bombs from the air, without respect for the nature of the targets, wherever the officers concerned expected to cause the greatest effect. In Great Britain, 60,000 civilians were killed. Though the Island was not invaded, the population was more directly involved than it was in any former war. Children and others were evacuated from towns into the country. Food supplies ran so short that, at the worst, even potatoes were rationed. All of the states opposed to Germany, Great Britain was the only one which fought throughout the war. The resources of the nation were concentrated in the war effort more completely than those of any other nation on either side. Labour for women as well as men, became compulsory. Nevertheless, once the war reached its full severity in the west, eight months after it was declared, there was less disunion between classes and interests than in any other five years within living memory.
Fighting spread all over the world. The Pacific was as vital a theatre as Europe. Scientists, especially Physicists, made revolutionary discoveries during the war, not only in the fields of weapons and defense against them, but also in supply, transport, and control in action. Strange to say the fight services suffered fewer casualties than in 1914-18: 300,000 of the armed forces and 35,000 of the navy were killed. There was nothing like the trench warfare of former war, though there was almost every other sort of warfare, from mechanized war of movement in the North Africa desert to hand to hand jungle fighting in Burma. Both sides experimented and built ip stocks for gas-warfare and biological warfare, but neither side used them. (George Clark: English History: A Survey)
Up to a point the second German War resembled the first. Each began with a German bid for power which almost succeeded in spite of the opposition of France and Great Britain. In each the United State came to the rescue after years of neutrality. Each ended with a German defeat. But the differences were easier to see than the resemblances. The powers were differently grouped.
Italy and Japan were on the German side, Russia was neutral until the Germans attacked across what had been, to begin with, Poland and Baltic States. The second war lasted even longer than the other. It pressed harder on the civilian population. After a period of restraint, perhaps, intended to conciliate American opinion, both sides dropped bombs from the air, without respect for the nature of the targets, wherever the officers concerned expected to cause the greatest effect. In Great Britain, 60,000 civilians were killed. Though the Island was not invaded, the population was more directly involved than it was in any former war. Children and others were evacuated from towns into the country. Food supplies ran so short that, at the worst, even potatoes were rationed. All of the states opposed to Germany, Great Britain was the only one which fought throughout the war. The resources of the nation were concentrated in the war effort more completely than those of any other nation on either side. Labour for women as well as men, became compulsory. Nevertheless, once the war reached its full severity in the west, eight months after it was declared, there was less disunion between classes and interests than in any other five years within living memory.
Fighting spread all over the world. The Pacific was as vital a theatre as Europe. Scientists, especially Physicists, made revolutionary discoveries during the war, not only in the fields of weapons and defense against them, but also in supply, transport, and control in action. Strange to say the fight services suffered fewer casualties than in 1914-18: 300,000 of the armed forces and 35,000 of the navy were killed. There was nothing like the trench warfare of former war, though there was almost every other sort of warfare, from mechanized war of movement in the North Africa desert to hand to hand jungle fighting in Burma. Both sides experimented and built ip stocks for gas-warfare and biological warfare, but neither side used them. (George Clark: English History: A Survey)
Q. 3. Make a precis of the following passage in about 250 words. (20)
Year 1973
As a kind of foot-note I should comment that there are those who doubt whether it is within the power of science to ensure over a prolonged period of freedom from destitution and famine for mankind. The argument is the old one of Malthus, that in the race between increasing population and increasing production, population must eventually win. Those of us who decline to accept this pessimistic view recognize the difficulty of the practical problem of meeting the needs of an ever-expanding population. We have, however, greater faith in human resourcefulness. We note that it is not only in the technology of production and medicine that the present generation differs so greatly from the one before. A similar rapid change is likewise occurring in the thinking of masses of people. This change is brought about partly by experience with technology and partly by more widespread education. Here lies a new realm in which dramatic advance is being made.
The hope for the longer future lies in a growing understanding of the conditions for the good life of man in a world of science and technology, and the acceptance of a morality that is consistent with these conditions. With the widespread thought now being given to such problems by persons whose thinking is schooled to rely on reason and tested fact. It is evident that advance from this angle will also appear. Youth may, for example, consider these remarks as an effort to see in truer perspective the type of ideals that are appropriate to the age of science. Many are those who are now sharing to this exploration of human values.
The great question is whether such understanding of human goals and the corresponding development of morals can be achieved before the forces seen by Malthus, and emphasized so forcefully by recent writers, overwhelm the efforts of the pioneers in this new and critical field. I do not believe that this is inevitable. I am confident of man's ability to meet and solve this ethical problem that is so vital to the success of his effort to achieve physical and spiritual freedom,
It is relevant that as I analyse the reasons for my faith in man's eventual ability to meet this critical problems. I find that prominent in my mind is the confidence that God Who made us holds for us an increasing density, to be achieved through our own efforts in the world setting that he supplies. This observation is significant in the present setting because it is my strong impression that most of those who have the firm faith in man's advancement likewise have a religious basis of their faith. If this impression is valid its consequence is clear. It means that it is men and women of religious faith on whom we must primarily rely to work strongly toward achieving a favourable world society. It means also that those of religious faith because of their faith have a better chance of survival, a fact that has a bearing on the attitude that may be expected in the society of the future.
As a kind of foot-note I should comment that there are those who doubt whether it is within the power of science to ensure over a prolonged period of freedom from destitution and famine for mankind. The argument is the old one of Malthus, that in the race between increasing population and increasing production, population must eventually win. Those of us who decline to accept this pessimistic view recognize the difficulty of the practical problem of meeting the needs of an ever-expanding population. We have, however, greater faith in human resourcefulness. We note that it is not only in the technology of production and medicine that the present generation differs so greatly from the one before. A similar rapid change is likewise occurring in the thinking of masses of people. This change is brought about partly by experience with technology and partly by more widespread education. Here lies a new realm in which dramatic advance is being made.
The hope for the longer future lies in a growing understanding of the conditions for the good life of man in a world of science and technology, and the acceptance of a morality that is consistent with these conditions. With the widespread thought now being given to such problems by persons whose thinking is schooled to rely on reason and tested fact. It is evident that advance from this angle will also appear. Youth may, for example, consider these remarks as an effort to see in truer perspective the type of ideals that are appropriate to the age of science. Many are those who are now sharing to this exploration of human values.
The great question is whether such understanding of human goals and the corresponding development of morals can be achieved before the forces seen by Malthus, and emphasized so forcefully by recent writers, overwhelm the efforts of the pioneers in this new and critical field. I do not believe that this is inevitable. I am confident of man's ability to meet and solve this ethical problem that is so vital to the success of his effort to achieve physical and spiritual freedom,
It is relevant that as I analyse the reasons for my faith in man's eventual ability to meet this critical problems. I find that prominent in my mind is the confidence that God Who made us holds for us an increasing density, to be achieved through our own efforts in the world setting that he supplies. This observation is significant in the present setting because it is my strong impression that most of those who have the firm faith in man's advancement likewise have a religious basis of their faith. If this impression is valid its consequence is clear. It means that it is men and women of religious faith on whom we must primarily rely to work strongly toward achieving a favourable world society. It means also that those of religious faith because of their faith have a better chance of survival, a fact that has a bearing on the attitude that may be expected in the society of the future.
Q.4. Make a precis of the following passage in about 200 words. (20)
Year 1974
Man is pre-eminently an animal good at gadgets. However, there is reason for doubting his good judgement in their utilization.
Perhaps the first chemical process which man employed for his own service was combustion. First utilized to warm naked and chilled bodies, it was then discovered to be effective for scaring off nocturnal beasts of prey and an admirable agent for the preparation and preservation of food. Much later came the discovery that fire could be used in extracting and working metals and last of all that it could be employed to generate power. In ancient times man began to use fire as a weapon, beginning with incendiary torches and arrow and proceeding to explosives, which have been developed principally for the destruction of human beings and their works.
In the control and utilization of gases, the achievements of our species have not been commendable. One might begin with air, which man breathes in common with other terrestrial vertebrates. He differs from other animals in that he seems incapable of selecting the right kind of air for breathing. Man is for ever doing things, which foul the air and poisoning himself by his own stupidity. He pens himself up in a limited air space and suffocates; he manufactures noxious gases which accidentally or intentionally displace the air and remove him from the ranks of the living; he has been completely unable to filter the air of the disease germs, which he breathes to his detriment; he and all his works are powerless to prevent a hurricane or to withstand its force. Man has indeed been able to utilize the power of moving air currents to a limited extent and to imitate the flight of birds, with the certainty of eventually breaking his neck if he tries it.
Man uses water much in the same way as other animals; he has to drink it constantly, washes in it frequently, and drowns in it occasionally -- probably oftener than other terrestrial vertebrates. Without water, he dies as miserably as any other beast and with too much of it, as in floods, he is equally unable to cope. However, he excels other animals in that he has learned to utilize water power.
But it is rather man's lack of judgement in the exercise of control of natural resources which would disgust critics of higher intelligence, although it would not surprise the apes. Man observes that the wood of trees is serviceable and recklessly denudes the earth of forests, insofar as he is able, He finds that the meat and skins of the bison are valuable and immediately goes to work to exterminate the bison. He allows his grazing animals to strip the turf from the soil so that it is blown away and fertile places become deserts. He clears for cultivation and exhausts the rich land by stupid planting. He goes into wholesale production of food, cereals, fruits and livestock and allows the fruits of his labour to rot or to starve because he has not provided any adequate method of distributing them or because no one can pay for them. He invents machines which do the work of many men, and is perplexed by the many men who are out of work. It would be hard to convince judges of human conduct that man is not an economic fool.
Man is pre-eminently an animal good at gadgets. However, there is reason for doubting his good judgement in their utilization.
Perhaps the first chemical process which man employed for his own service was combustion. First utilized to warm naked and chilled bodies, it was then discovered to be effective for scaring off nocturnal beasts of prey and an admirable agent for the preparation and preservation of food. Much later came the discovery that fire could be used in extracting and working metals and last of all that it could be employed to generate power. In ancient times man began to use fire as a weapon, beginning with incendiary torches and arrow and proceeding to explosives, which have been developed principally for the destruction of human beings and their works.
In the control and utilization of gases, the achievements of our species have not been commendable. One might begin with air, which man breathes in common with other terrestrial vertebrates. He differs from other animals in that he seems incapable of selecting the right kind of air for breathing. Man is for ever doing things, which foul the air and poisoning himself by his own stupidity. He pens himself up in a limited air space and suffocates; he manufactures noxious gases which accidentally or intentionally displace the air and remove him from the ranks of the living; he has been completely unable to filter the air of the disease germs, which he breathes to his detriment; he and all his works are powerless to prevent a hurricane or to withstand its force. Man has indeed been able to utilize the power of moving air currents to a limited extent and to imitate the flight of birds, with the certainty of eventually breaking his neck if he tries it.
Man uses water much in the same way as other animals; he has to drink it constantly, washes in it frequently, and drowns in it occasionally -- probably oftener than other terrestrial vertebrates. Without water, he dies as miserably as any other beast and with too much of it, as in floods, he is equally unable to cope. However, he excels other animals in that he has learned to utilize water power.
But it is rather man's lack of judgement in the exercise of control of natural resources which would disgust critics of higher intelligence, although it would not surprise the apes. Man observes that the wood of trees is serviceable and recklessly denudes the earth of forests, insofar as he is able, He finds that the meat and skins of the bison are valuable and immediately goes to work to exterminate the bison. He allows his grazing animals to strip the turf from the soil so that it is blown away and fertile places become deserts. He clears for cultivation and exhausts the rich land by stupid planting. He goes into wholesale production of food, cereals, fruits and livestock and allows the fruits of his labour to rot or to starve because he has not provided any adequate method of distributing them or because no one can pay for them. He invents machines which do the work of many men, and is perplexed by the many men who are out of work. It would be hard to convince judges of human conduct that man is not an economic fool.
Q.5. Make a precis of the following passage in about 200 words. (20)
Year 1975
What virtues must we require of a man to whom we entrust directing of our affairs? Above all, a sense of what is possible. In politics, it is useless to formulate great and noble projects if, due to the existing state of the country, they cannot be accomplished. The impulses of a free people are at all times a parallelogram of forces The great statesman realizes precisely what these forces are and says to himself without ever being seriously mistaken: "I can go just so far and no further". He does not allow himself to favour one class, foreseeing the inevitable reactions of the neglected groups. A prudent doctor does not cure his patient of a passing complaint with a remedy that produces a permanent diseases of the liver; and a judicious statesman neither appeases the working class at the risk of angering the bourgeoisie, nor does he indulge the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working class. He endeavours to regard the nation as a great living body whose organs are interdependent. He takes the temperature of public opinion every day, and if the fever increases he sees to it that the country rests.
Though he may fully appreciate the power of public opinion, a forceful and clever statesman realizes that he can influence it fairly easily. He has calculated the people's power to remain indifferent to his efforts; they have their moment of violence, and their angry protests are legitimate if the Government brings poverty on them, takes away their traditional liberty, or seriously interferes with their home life. But they will allow themselves to be led by a man who knows where he is going and who shows them clearly that he has the nation's interest at heart and that they may have confidence in him.
The sense of what is possible is not only the ability to recognize that certain things are impossible -- a negative virtue -- but also to know that, to a courageous man, things which may appear to be very difficult are in fact possible. A great statesman does not say to himself: "This nation is weak," but "This nation is asleep; I shall wake it up. Laws and institutions are of the people's making; if necessary, I shall change them".
But above all, the determination to do something must be followed by acts, not merely words. Mediocre politicians spend most of their time devising schemes and preaching doctrines. They talk of structural reforms, they invent faultless social systems and formulate plans for perpetual peace. In his public speeches the true statesman knows how, if necessary, to make polite bows to new theories and to pronounce ritualistic phrases for the benefit of those who guard temple gates; but he actually occupies himself by taking care of the real needs of the nation. He endeavours to accomplish definite and precise objectives in ways that seem best to him. If he finds obstacles in his path, he makes detours. Vanity, intellectual pride, and a feeling for system are serious handicaps to the politicians. Some party leaders are ready to sacrifice the country for a theory or a set of principles. The true leader says: "Let the principles go but I must save the nation".
What virtues must we require of a man to whom we entrust directing of our affairs? Above all, a sense of what is possible. In politics, it is useless to formulate great and noble projects if, due to the existing state of the country, they cannot be accomplished. The impulses of a free people are at all times a parallelogram of forces The great statesman realizes precisely what these forces are and says to himself without ever being seriously mistaken: "I can go just so far and no further". He does not allow himself to favour one class, foreseeing the inevitable reactions of the neglected groups. A prudent doctor does not cure his patient of a passing complaint with a remedy that produces a permanent diseases of the liver; and a judicious statesman neither appeases the working class at the risk of angering the bourgeoisie, nor does he indulge the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working class. He endeavours to regard the nation as a great living body whose organs are interdependent. He takes the temperature of public opinion every day, and if the fever increases he sees to it that the country rests.
Though he may fully appreciate the power of public opinion, a forceful and clever statesman realizes that he can influence it fairly easily. He has calculated the people's power to remain indifferent to his efforts; they have their moment of violence, and their angry protests are legitimate if the Government brings poverty on them, takes away their traditional liberty, or seriously interferes with their home life. But they will allow themselves to be led by a man who knows where he is going and who shows them clearly that he has the nation's interest at heart and that they may have confidence in him.
The sense of what is possible is not only the ability to recognize that certain things are impossible -- a negative virtue -- but also to know that, to a courageous man, things which may appear to be very difficult are in fact possible. A great statesman does not say to himself: "This nation is weak," but "This nation is asleep; I shall wake it up. Laws and institutions are of the people's making; if necessary, I shall change them".
But above all, the determination to do something must be followed by acts, not merely words. Mediocre politicians spend most of their time devising schemes and preaching doctrines. They talk of structural reforms, they invent faultless social systems and formulate plans for perpetual peace. In his public speeches the true statesman knows how, if necessary, to make polite bows to new theories and to pronounce ritualistic phrases for the benefit of those who guard temple gates; but he actually occupies himself by taking care of the real needs of the nation. He endeavours to accomplish definite and precise objectives in ways that seem best to him. If he finds obstacles in his path, he makes detours. Vanity, intellectual pride, and a feeling for system are serious handicaps to the politicians. Some party leaders are ready to sacrifice the country for a theory or a set of principles. The true leader says: "Let the principles go but I must save the nation".
No comments:
Post a Comment