 |
| well-known situation? |
this is an article I summarized during a fake exam in English class. Again, I will provide the text I produced as well as my suggested correction.
Here you go:
This text discusses whether British scientists and companies should have profited or acted out of patriotism during the First World War. A glance into the history enables a better understanding of this issue. Prior to World War I, many companies took no reward when supporting the state during wartime. Indeed, scientists served on the front in various technical positions.
This mentality changed drastically after a communication interception by Germany. Following this incident, the UK copied the strategy of Germany and started to fund its scientists and companies. As a result, Britain won the war and gained inventions and new technologies.
In order to acknowledge the scientists’ work, the UK gave awards and a great amount of money to them after the war. Money that the country did not have after four years of spending millions on warfare. The questions that come up are therefore: Was it right that the state paid for research during wartime? Should the scientists and companies have acted out of patriotism?
It can be concluded that the question whether scientists as well as companies deserved great funding in wartimes is not clarified. Fact is that the UK was one of the winning states due to the research funding and the maybe partly bought motivation of the researchers.
[211 words]
And now the correction:
The text Great
profits during the Great War? was written by Elizabeth Bruton and
Graeme Gooday and published in The Guardian on October 28, 2013. It
discusses whether British scientists and companies should have profited during
the First World War or researched voluntarily. Prior to
World War One, many companies and researchers supported the state during
wartime without charging for their efforts.
This
mentality changed profoundly after a communication interception by Germany. The
incident signaled that Germany's war technology is more advanced and,
thus, led the UK to copying the strategy of funding scientists and
companies. Resulting in increased motivation, Britain gained victory as well as
inventions and new technologies.
In order to
acknowledge the scientists’ work, the UK rewarded them generously after the
war. The country distributed money that it did not own after four years of
spending millions on warfare. The questions that arose are therefore: Was it
right that the state paid for research during wartime? Should the scientists
and companies have acted out of patriotism?
It can be
concluded that the question whether scientists and companies deserved great
funding during wartime is not clarified. Fact is that the UK was one of the
winning states due to the research funding and the maybe partly bought
motivation of the researchers.
[217 words]
Stuff I corrected:
1) As with the Crisis of Credit text I tried to make things more formal.
2) I also added information about where and when the text was published as well as by whom it was written.
3) In the second paragraph, my text did not seem clear enough to me, so I tried to explain what I meant.That's it for now, I am sure I'll write some more summaries that I'll correct and post on here. Until then:
