Comment on "summary55555"

Ambrose Evans-Pitchard’s article in The Telegraph of the 23rd October 2013 analyses the
approaching European deflation in connection with debt.

At the beginning of the text, the author mentions that deflation had already occurred before.  (lack of cohesion between this sentence and the following) Deflation can influence the economy of countries positively (did they author state this?) if they are not too heavily in debt. This, however, is not the case in Europe: As many countries are overburdened with debts, repaying it becomes more and more difficult if the inflation is too low. This problem does not only affect national but also private debt.

It is argued (by whom?) that the ECB should try everything to maintain an inflation of at least 2% in order to prevent from an economic disaster, but according to the author, Europe seems to be
paralyzed. Italy, France and Spain should gang up on Germany and dictate a new policy,
which combats deflation and could therefore help restoring the damaged economies. Yet, they
fear that Germany might leave the EMU and leave it up to the rest (whom?) to solve the debt problem.
Summing up, Europe is far away from a proper solution. It still seems to be in recession but
prefers to wait for an economic miracle instead of taking the initiative.

[201 words]

Feedback
The introduction of the student is quite clear and gives a general overview of the article. There are, however, some small mistakes (grammar etc.) in the text and once the cohesion between two sentences was not quite clear. The student should probably mention more often that the things mentioned in his summary are solely the opinion of the author. All in all, the summary still explained the maint points mentioned in the article, though I feel that some facts were not mentioned (for example that the last part were the solutions proposed by the author, what lead to debt crisis etc.)