What a precis is, the rules, the one-third length target, the step method, and two worked examples
A precis is a short, faithful summary of a longer passage, written in your own words, that keeps every essential idea and drops everything inessential. The skill being tested is compression without distortion. You must say what the author said, only shorter.
| A precis is | A precis is not |
|---|---|
| A condensed version of the whole passage | A reply, comment or criticism of it |
| In your own words | A string of sentences copied from the original |
| In one connected paragraph | A list of bullet points |
| Neutral, reporting the author's view | A place for your own opinion |
| Reduced to about one-third the length | A loose summary of any length you like |
You are usually asked to state the word count. Count honestly and write the figure at the end, for example "(98 words)". Do not under-report. Train yourself to estimate by counting the words in your first two lines and multiplying.
| Long form | Short form |
|---|---|
| in the event that | if |
| due to the fact that | because |
| at this point in time | now |
| a large number of | many |
| in spite of the fact that | although |
| with reference to | about |
| make a decision | decide |
| give consideration to | consider |
Disaster management in India has undergone a quiet but important change of emphasis. For a long time the system was built around relief: when a flood or a cyclone struck, money and material were rushed to the affected districts, camps were opened, and the damage was tallied afterwards. This response was humane and necessary, yet it was always a step behind the event. It treated each disaster as a sudden misfortune to be cleaned up rather than as a recurring risk to be reduced. The cost of this approach was high, because the same low-lying settlements were flooded year after year and the same fragile structures collapsed in every tremor.
The newer thinking places prevention and preparedness before relief. It asks why a hazard becomes a disaster at all, and it finds the answer less in the natural event than in human choices: where people are allowed to build, how strictly safety codes are followed, whether warnings reach the vulnerable in time, and whether communities have rehearsed what to do. A cyclone of the same strength may kill thousands in one decade and only a handful in the next, not because the storm changed but because forecasting improved, shelters were built, and evacuation was practised.
This shift does not make relief unnecessary; disasters will still strike and the injured will still need help. But it reframes the goal. The measure of success is no longer how quickly aid arrives after the event, but how much the harm has been prevented before it. A mature system invests in the unglamorous work of mapping risk, enforcing building rules and training local volunteers, knowing that the lives saved this way are real even though they can never be counted by name.
Title: From Relief to Prevention in Disaster Management
Indian disaster management has shifted its emphasis. The older system concentrated on relief after a flood or cyclone, which was humane but reactive and costly, since the same vulnerable places suffered repeatedly. Newer thinking puts prevention and preparedness first, recognising that a hazard turns into a disaster largely through human choices about where people build, how safety codes are enforced, and whether warnings and evacuation are practised. Improved forecasting, shelters and drills can sharply reduce deaths from a storm of unchanged strength. Relief remains necessary, but success is now judged by the harm prevented rather than the speed of aid. (101 words)
The relationship between security and liberty is often presented as a simple trade-off, as though a society could buy more of one only by selling some of the other. On this view, every camera installed, every record kept and every power granted to the state is a small payment of freedom in exchange for safety. There is some truth in the image, for unchecked surveillance can indeed narrow the space in which citizens think and speak freely. Yet the trade-off framing is also misleading, because security and liberty are not always opposed. A person who fears violence is not free in any meaningful sense; the woman who cannot walk home at night and the trader who must pay protection money have lost liberties that no constitution can restore to them. A reasonable measure of security is therefore a condition of liberty, not its enemy.
The real question is not how much liberty to surrender but how power is to be controlled. Powers that are necessary become dangerous only when they are unaccountable: when no one knows what is collected, no judge reviews it, and no citizen can challenge its misuse. The same power, hedged by clear law, open rules and independent oversight, can protect freedom rather than threaten it. The mistake is to treat the choice as one of quantity, more security against less liberty, when it is really one of design. A well-designed system can deliver both; a badly designed one can destroy both at once, leaving citizens neither safe nor free.
Title: Security and Liberty as a Question of Design
Security and liberty are commonly seen as a trade-off, where gaining one means losing the other. This is partly true, since unchecked surveillance can narrow free thought and speech. But it is misleading, because the fear of violence is itself a loss of liberty, so reasonable security is a condition of freedom rather than its enemy. The real issue is not the quantity of liberty surrendered but the control of power, which becomes dangerous only when unaccountable. With clear law and oversight the same power can protect freedom; poor design destroys both. (91 words)
Take any of the passages in comprehension practice set 1 or comprehension practice set 2 and write a one-third precis of each. Then compress an editorial from a newspaper to one-third and check that you lost no essential point.