New Invention

[dean]

Can somebody evaluate my essay.If the full mark is 6, What is my rate? tq



We should give credits to the pass inventor such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and others. This is because; their inventions have helped us a lot in our daily life.



If I could invent something new, I would invent a drug for Aids. We can see many people died because of Aids. By inventing this new drug, I can help all the patients all around the world who are suffering from this deadly disease.

This new drug should apply the concept of targeting drug. Which means it only goes to the specific site or only to the infected cells. With this advance technology, it not only can cure the disease, it also can reduce the possibility of the potential side effects.

To sum up, this invention is very crucial to the community, because it can prolong the life of the patients and also at the same time it can save a lot of the government's budget that is needed for the palliative care of the patients.

[RonBee]

I will do a little now and then come back later. (Other questions await my attention.)

We should give credits to the pass inventor such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and others. This is because; their inventions have helped us a lot in our daily life.

Say "We should give credit" (not "credits"). Also, I don't think I would use past inventors. How might you improve that sentence?

In the second sentence, "their inventions have helped us a lot" is, I think, rather weak. (Say: "our daily lives") How might you improve that sentence?

If I could invent something new, I would invent a drug for Aids. We can see many people died because of Aids. By inventing this new drug, I can help all the patients all around the world who are suffering from this deadly disease.

Capitalize AIDS. (It is an acronym for autoimmune deficiency syndrome.) Say: "Many people have died from AIDS. Say: "I would help...." What might you replace "patients" with?

:)

[RonBee]

If I could invent something new, I would invent a drug for Aids. We can see many people died because of Aids. By inventing this new drug, I can help all the patients all around the world who are suffering from this deadly disease.

Rather than "drug for AIDS" you might want to say "cure for AIDS" or "drug to cure AIDS".

This new drug should apply the concept of targeting drug. Which means it only goes to the specific site or only to the infected cells. With this advance technology, it not only can cure the disease, it also can reduce the possibility of the potential side effects.

You might want to say "acts on" rather than "goes to". Say: "advanced technology". How might you improve the first sentence?

To sum up, this invention is very crucial to the community, because it can prolong the life of the patients and also at the same time it can save a lot of the government's budget that is needed for the palliative care of the patients.

Say "would be" and "would" rather than "is" and "can". How might you change "a lot of the government's budget"? Are you sure you need "To sum up" there?

:)

[dean]

Say "We should give credit" (not "credits"). Also, I don't think I would use past inventors. How might you improve that sentence?

We should give credit to the dedicted inventors such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and others.

In the second sentence, "their inventions have helped us a lot" is, I think, rather weak. (Say: "our daily lives") How might you improve that sentence?

We can not deny that, their inventions have helped us a lot. Our daily lives becoming more easy and meaningful.
or
We have to agree that, their inventions have helped us a lot. Our daily lives becoming more easy and meaningful.

If I could invent something new, I would invent a drug for Aids. We can see many people died because of Aids. By inventing this new drug, I can help all the patients all around the world who are suffering from this deadly disease.
Capitalize AIDS. (It is an acronym for autoimmune deficiency syndrome.) Say: "Many people have died from AIDS. Say: "I would help...." What might you replace "patients" with?

Many people have died from AIDS.I would help all the people that are suffering from this deadly disease by inventing new drug to cure AIDS.


- Dear Ron - I like your new style in helping me with my English.Thanks a lot.

[dean]

This new drug should apply the concept of targeting drug. Which means it only goes to the specific site or only to the infected cells. With this advance technology, it not only can cure the disease, it also can reduce the possibility of the potential side effects.

You might want to say "acts on" rather than "goes to". Say: "advanced technology". How might you improve the first sentence?

By implementing the advanced technology of targeting drug, this newly develop drug will only acts on the speciifc site or only to the infected cells.

To sum up, this invention is very crucial to the community, because it can prolong the life of the patients and also at the same time it can save a lot of the government's budget that is needed for the palliative care of the patients.

Say "would be" and "would" rather than "is" and "can". How might you change "a lot of the government's budget"? Are you sure you need "To sum up" there?

In the conclusion, this invention would be crucial to the community, because it would prolong the life of the patients and also at the same time it can reduced the use of government's fund for the palliative care of the patients.

[RonBee]

Say "We should give credit" (not "credits"). Also, I don't think I would use past inventors. How might you improve that sentence?

We should give credit to the dedicted inventors such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and others.

You can use past inventors. (I just don't like it much.) I was thinking you could say something a little more clever, like: "We should give credit to those inventors who have made our lives so rich, for example: Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell." Or: "We should give credit to those people whose inventions have had such a profound impact on our world, making it what it is."

What do you think?

:)

In the second sentence, "their inventions have helped us a lot" is, I think, rather weak. (Say: "our daily lives") How might you improve that sentence?

We can not deny that, their inventions have helped us a lot. Our daily lives becoming more easy and meaningful.
or
We have to agree that, their inventions have helped us a lot. Our daily lives becoming more easy and meaningful.

That is good (you don't need those commas), but they have done more than help, haven't they? The telephone, for example, is considered an essential part of our daily lives. It is an invention that has changed society greatly. Most people would have a hard time getting by without their telephone.

If I could invent something new, I would invent a drug for Aids. We can see many people died because of Aids. By inventing this new drug, I can help all the patients all around the world who are suffering from this deadly disease.
Capitalize AIDS. (It is an acronym for autoimmune deficiency syndrome.) Say: "Many people have died from AIDS. Say: "I would help...." What might you replace "patients" with?

Many people have died from AIDS.I would help all the people that are suffering from this deadly disease by inventing new drug to cure AIDS.

That's not bad.

:D

- Dear Ron - I like your new style in helping me with my English.Thanks a lot.

Thanks.

:D

[RonBee]

This new drug should apply the concept of targeting drug. Which means it only goes to the specific site or only to the infected cells. With this advance technology, it not only can cure the disease, it also can reduce the possibility of the potential side effects.

You might want to say "acts on" rather than "goes to". Say: "advanced technology". How might you improve the first sentence?

By implementing the advanced technology of targeting drug, this newly develop drug will only acts on the speciifc site or only to the infected cells.

Try:

• By implementing the advanced technology of targeting drug, this newly developed drug will only act on the targeted site or only affect the infected cells.

To sum up, this invention is very crucial to the community, because it can prolong the life of the patients and also at the same time it can save a lot of the government's budget that is needed for the palliative care of the patients.

Say "would be" and "would" rather than "is" and "can". How might you change "a lot of the government's budget"? Are you sure you need "To sum up" there?

In the conclusion, this invention would be crucial to the community, because it would prolong the life of the patients and also at the same time it can reduced the use of government's fund for the palliative care of the patients.

Say: reduce the use of government funds. Or say save money.

:)