regbar

Hello ! I have to make a summary ofa text. Here is myintroduction(whichis not completely finished). Is there any possible improvement ?Thanksfor your help







This text is an article by Václav Havel entitled “A New Impetus for Old Europe”. It is published in The Economist[on/in]2004.V. Havel is a Czech writer and dramatist. He was a leading figure inthe Velvet Revolution that brought down communism in Czechoslovakia.In December 1989, he was elected President of his country. His secondterm as Czech President ended February 2003. [ OR In December 1989, hewas elected President of his country until February 2003 when hissecond term as Czech President ended ] (What is the best in youropinion?).





“A New Impetus for Old Europe” approaches the geographical expansion ofthe European Union (E.U.) with the entry of ten new countries in2004.More precisely, it [ addresses/examines ] the cultural, economical and political consequences entailed by the widening of the E.U. [ OR More precisely, it addresses/examines its cultural, economical and political consequences ]. [ In V. Havel’s view/According to V. Havel ](What is the best?),(commaor no comma?) the E.U. enlargement eastward marks (does it existabetter verb?) a turning point in the history of Europe. It “heralds theUnion’s transformation into an entirely new geopolitical entity”. Wecan wonder about (is it correct?) the reasons for thiscontention/assertion/claim/statement (which word is the more rigorous?)

Nani

Hi regbar ...

here is something i hope it would help .....


It was published in The Economist in 2004.

In December 1989, he was elected as the President of his country. ( this is a wrong information , check it again . In 1989 , he was the the leader of the democratic movement, and after the fall of communism he became the president of Czechoslovakia. )

so , it goes like this :

In 1993 he was elected the first president of the newly-separate Czech Republic. He was reelected in 1998 and served until February of 2003.


“A New Impetus for Old Europe” approaches the geographical expansion ofthe European Union (E.U.) with the entry of ten new countries in2004.More precisely, it addresses the cultural, economical and political consequences entailed by the widening of the E.U.


According to V. Havel, the E.U. enlargement eastward marks a turning point in the history of Europe. It “heralds the Union’s transformation into an entirely new geopolitical entity”.


Wecan wonder about (is it correct?) the reasons for thiscontention/assertion/claim/statement (which word is the more rigorous?)

i guess you can write :

Yet, one wonders about the reasons for this claim.


i hope this would help ...

regbar

Many thanks for your answer

"Yet, one wonders about the reasons for this claim". Why not "one can wonder about..." ? It is not exactly the same (?).

regbar

And do not you think "we" is better than "one" ? I mean it is more rigorous, less whooly in my opinion. What do you think about it ?

Nani

Hi again regbar ..

both sentences are right i guess .. this depends on the context of your text .
i suggest either you say :

one can wonder OR one wonders ...

good luck