Great Profits during the Great War?

Hello,

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:

The Crisis of Credit Visualized

I summarized this video for an English class:

The task was to condense this about 11-minute long video into 200 words, explaining the causes for the credit crisis logically without losing any relevant information.

And this is my first final version:

The video The Crisis of Credit Visualised explains the reasons for the big financial fiasco of 2007/2008, commonly known as the credit crisis. It starts with describing how the dot.com crash enabled banks to borrow money cheaply from the Federal Reserve. In order to receive even more money, banks had the idea to connect families and investors by buying mortgages.

For this, bankers used the principle of leverage, which means that they bought many mortgages, so as to gain money from the homeowners as well as from the investors. In the end, the bank paid back its debts to the investors and still owned a considerable amount of money.

The problem was that bankers craved for more. They started to buy subprime mortgages from homeowners who were likely to default; and they eventually did. The bank ended up with a large number of houses but no reliable people who would buy them. The house prices sank and therefore people who could afford the mortgages stopped paying as well.

In conclusion, the financial system froze. The entire line of brokers, lenders, banks and investors went bankrupt and was unable to keep the economy growing. The crisis of credit took its course.

[200 words]

Alright. You may have noticed that there are a few mistakes in there.

- I didn't mention the name of the creator of the video

- I left out some important information but wrote a lot of unnecessary words

- It's much too informal

I wrote this second version, trying to correct some of the mistakes. You have to be patient with me when it comes to formal English, though, I am slowly improving on it.

The video The Crisis of Credit Visualized by Jonathan Jarvis explains the reasons for the 2008 credit crisis. It starts by describing the dot.com bust, an economic downturn resulting in low interest rates that were undesirable for investors. Bankers solved the investors’ problem by connecting them with families through mortgages.

Brokers sold houses to reliable families, lenders provided the mortgages and banks purchased them. Bankers then divided the collection of mortgages called Collateralized Debt Obligation, abbreviated as CDO, into three slices; the safe, okay and risky slice. Investors bought the AAA rated safe slice that was additionally protected with a low-cost insurance, the Credit Default Swap, abbreviated as CDS. Bankers used this example of the principle of leverage to accumulate wealth.

Avarice that overcame bankers caused the system to collapse. They began to purchase subprime mortgages from homeowners whose default was foreseeable. As a result, the bank was left with many unwanted houses. The house prices sank and therefore people who could afford their mortgages stopped paying as well.

In conclusion, the financial system froze. The line of brokers, lenders, banks and investors went bankrupt and was unable to keep the economy growing. The crisis of credit took its course.

[200 words]

I hope you think that the text is actually better now. 

Thanks for reading and cheers!