Learn Hardcore German: Die Dozentin zeigt uns, wie wir einen langen Text in drei Sätzen zusammenfassen können, ohne dass wichtige Details verloren gehen. - The lecturer shows us how we can summarize a long text in three sentences without important details being lost.

Die Dozentin zeigt uns (DAT) einen Film (ACC).
→ The lecturer shows us a film.
Die Dozentin zeigt mir (DAT) den Text (ACC).
→ The lecturer shows me the text.

In the sentence:

Die Dozentin zeigt uns, wie …

uns = to us (indirect object in dative).

Why is there a comma before wie, and what kind of clause is wie wir einen langen Text … können?

In German, wie can introduce a subordinate clause meaning “how”:

…, wie wir einen langen Text in drei Sätzen zusammenfassen können …
… how we can summarize a long text in three sentences …

This is a content clause (like “She shows us how to do something”).

Rules involved:

Subordinate clauses introduced by conjunctions such as dass, weil, wenn, wie are separated with a comma from the main clause.
In such subordinate clauses, the conjugated verb goes to the end (here: können).

So the comma marks the start of the subordinate “how”-clause.

Why is the word order in the wie‑clause “… zusammenfassen können” and not “… können zusammenfassen”?

In German subordinate clauses with more than one verb, all the verbs go to the end, and they appear in a specific order:

Finite (conjugated) verb last
Infinitives and participles right before the finite verb

Here:

können is the finite (conjugated) verb.
zusammenfassen is the infinitive.

So the correct order is:

… einen langen Text in drei Sätzen zusammenfassen können

Wrong would be:

✗ … können zusammenfassen (this sounds like main-clause word order)

Why do we use the modal verb können at all? Could we just say wie wir … zusammenfassen?

You could say:

Die Dozentin zeigt uns, wie wir einen langen Text in drei Sätzen zusammenfassen.

That would still be grammatically correct and understandable.

However, können adds a nuance of ability / technique:

… wie wir … zusammenfassen.
→ more like a description of what we do.
… wie wir … zusammenfassen können.
→ how we are able to / can summarize it (what technique makes this possible).

In teaching contexts, können is very common because the teacher shows you how to be able to do something.

What case is einen langen Text, and why do the words look like that?

einen langen Text is masculine accusative singular.

Breakdown:

Noun: Text → masculine
Indefinite article (ACC masc.): einen
Adjective: lang with an ending appropriate for masculine accusative after an article → langen

Pattern for masculine singular:

Nominative: ein langer Text
Accusative: einen langen Text

We need the accusative because Text is the direct object of zusammenfassen (to summarize something).

Why is it in drei Sätzen, not in drei Sätze?

The preposition in can take:

Accusative → movement into something (where to?)
Dative → location (where?), or a more abstract "within"

Here, in drei Sätzen describes the form/medium in which the text is summarized, like “within three sentences” → this uses dative.

So:

Satz (singular) → der Satz
Dative plural → den Sätzen (with umlaut and -en)
No article here, just the number: in drei Sätzen

Compare:

Ich gehe in die Stadt. (ACC → where to?)
Ich bin in der Stadt. (DAT → where?)
Wir fassen den Text in drei Sätzen zusammen. (DAT → within / in the form of three sentences)

What does ohne dass do here, and why not just ohne wichtige Details zu verlieren?

Both are possible:

ohne dass wichtige Details verloren gehen
ohne wichtige Details zu verlieren

ohne dass introduces a full subordinate clause with its own subject and finite verb:

ohne dass wichtige Details verloren gehen
without the result that important details get lost

ohne … zu + infinitive is an infinitive construction used when the subject is the same as in the main clause:

ohne wichtige Details zu verlieren
without (us) losing important details

Since the subject is indeed the same (wir) in this sentence, option 2 is grammatically fine:

Die Dozentin zeigt uns, wie wir … zusammenfassen können,
ohne wichtige Details zu verlieren.

Using ohne dass sounds a bit more explicit or formal and highlights the undesired result (“without the consequence that details are lost”).

Why is it dass and not das in ohne dass wichtige Details verloren gehen?

German distinguishes:

dass (with ss) = subordinating conjunction (“that”)
das (with one s) = demonstrative / relative pronoun or article (“that”, “which”, “the”)

In our sentence, dass introduces a subordinate clause:

ohne dass wichtige Details verloren gehen
without that important details get lost

So we need the conjunction spelling: dass.

(Older spelling used daß, but modern standard German always writes dass.)

What exactly does verloren gehen mean, and why not just use verlieren?

verlieren means to lose something actively:

Wir verlieren wichtige Details.
→ We lose important details.

verloren gehen is more like “to get lost / to be lost in the process” — it emphasizes the result, often without assigning direct blame:

Wichtige Details gehen verloren.
→ Important details get lost. / are lost.

In the sentence:

… ohne dass wichtige Details verloren gehen.

Subject: wichtige Details
Verb phrase: verloren gehen (conjugated: gehen)

This emphasizes that in the process of summarizing, no important detail ends up being lost, rather than “we don’t lose them” as an active action.

Why is the verb at the end in ohne dass wichtige Details verloren gehen?

Because dass introduces a subordinate clause. In such clauses, the finite (conjugated) verb always goes to the end.

Structure:

Conjunction: dass
Subject: wichtige Details
(non-finite part / predicate adjective): verloren
Finite verb at the end: gehen

So:

ohne dass (conjunction)
wichtige Details (subject)
verloren (part of the verb phrase)
gehen (conjugated verb → final position)

That’s standard German word order for subordinate clauses.

Why is it wichtige Details and not wichtigen Details?

Details here is plural, nominative, and there is no article, only an adjective before it.

Pattern for adjective endings with no article in the plural nominative is -e:

wichtige Details
kleine Fehler
gute Ideen

If it were dative plural with a definite article, you’d see -en:

mit den wichtigen Details

But in our sentence, wichtige Details is the subject of the subordinate clause → nominative plural → adjective ending -e.

Is there a more natural or alternative way to phrase the whole sentence?

Yes, several variants are possible and natural. For example:

Die Dozentin zeigt uns, wie wir einen langen Text in drei Sätzen zusammenfassen können, ohne wichtige Details zu verlieren.
(Using the ohne … zu construction.)
Die Dozentin zeigt uns, wie man einen langen Text in drei Sätzen zusammenfassen kann, ohne dass wichtige Details verloren gehen.
(Using man for a general “one/people in general” instead of wir.)
Die Dozentin bringt uns bei, einen langen Text in drei Sätzen zusammenzufassen, ohne wichtige Details zu verlieren.
(Using beibringen
- zu-infinitive instead of zeigen, wie …)

All of these are correct; they differ slightly in style (more or less formal, more personalized vs general), but the original sentence is already perfectly idiomatic.