More relevant problems, so sharply divide, further development

[Anna232]

Are the parts marked by asterisks correct and natural?
I am talking about the government and people in my country.
1. They have more *relevant* problems for example *a* low income, *a* low level of education, *a* bad medicical service, awful *conditions of life*. Would this sentence be correct without the added articles? Can I use "relevant" instead of "important?"

2.Only after solving these problems people can *be involved in further development*of society. All aspects depend upon each other.

3.Without *a* good education we don't receive *a* good medical care. I added articles.

4.Without good salaries we cant pay all bills and in this way we have high crime rates. I can continue endlessly . I think it should be "that way."

5.So from my point of view if our goverment didn't divide our society so shardply into the weathly and the poor people, the part of happy people would be greater.

 

[teechar]

Are the parts marked by asterisks correct and natural?
I am talking about the government and people in my country.
1. They have more *relevant* problems for example *a* low income, *a* low level of education, *a* bad medicical service, awful *conditions of life*. Would this sentence be correct without the added articles? Can I use "relevant" instead of "important?"

Try "They have more serious/immediate problems such as low income, poor education, inadequate healthcare, and substandard living conditions". Do not use articles.

2.Only after solving these problems people can *be involved in further development*of society.

No. Try "Only after addressing these problems can governments expect those people to contribute to the development of the country". Note the inversion "can governments expect" (not "governments can expect").

All aspects depend upon each other.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

3.Without *a* good education we don't receive *a* good medical care. I added articles.

I don't understand the connection between a good education and getting medical care. Please explain.

I can continue endlessly.

Please don't!
In future, limit your thread to a single sentence, and post it to the "Ask a teacher" section of the forum.

 

[Anna232]

Try "They have more serious/immediate problems such as low income, poor education, inadequate healthcare, and substandard living conditions".

Do not use articles.

Why are they wrong with articles?

No. Try "Only after addressing these problems can governments expect those people to contribute to the development of the country".

Note the inversion "can governments expect" (not "governments can expect").

How does this inversion change the meaning? Is it understood as "only after that"?

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I mean all the mentioned things are connected. Would "aspects" make sense?

I don't understand the connection between a good education and getting medical care. Please explain.

A lot of people go abroad to receive treatment. They don't trust local doctors. The result of bad education are bad specialists. Can I use my sentence or is it still wrong?

Please don't!
In future, limit your thread to a single sentence, and post it to the "Ask a teacher" section of the forum.

OK

 

[teechar]

Why are they wrong with articles?

When speaking in general terms, we do not use articles.

How does this inversion change the meaning? Is it understood as "only after that"?

No. It's not about meaning. Your version (without the inversion) was ungrammatical. You need the inversion in that kind of sentence starting with "only".

I mean all the mentioned things are connected. Would "aspects" make sense?

Perhaps try "All those aspects of life are connected".

A lot of people go abroad to receive treatment. They don't trust local doctors. The result of bad education are bad specialists. Can I use my sentence or is it still wrong?

Ah, now I understand what you meant. Say, for example, "Without a good education system and properly trained doctors, we won't have good healthcare".

 

[Anna232]

When speaking in general terms, we do not use articles.

No. It's not about meaning. Your version (without the inversion) was ungrammatical. You need the inversion in that kind of sentence starting with "only".

Perhaps try "All those aspects of life are connected".

Ah, now I understand what you meant. Say, for example, "Without a good education system and properly trained doctors, we won't have good healthcare".

Could you tell me if in #4 and #5 I am right that "all bills" is wrong and it should be "bills" and "in this way" should be changed into "that way"?

4.Without good salaries we cant pay all bills and in this way we have high crime rates. I can continue endlessly . I think it should be "that way."

5. So from my point of view if our goverment didn't divide our society so shardply into the weathly and the poor people, the part of happy people would be greater.

I think it should be "the number of people" not "the part." Am I right?

 

[teechar]

Could you tell me if in #4 and #5 I am right that "all bills" is wrong and it should be "bills"

No. Say "all our bills".

and "in this way" should be changed into "that way"?

Neither is right. Say "and that's why".

4.Without good salaries, we can't pay all our bills, and in this way that's why we have a high crime rate. s. I can continue endlessly.

5. So from my point of view, if our government's policy/mismanagement didn't hadn't divided our society so starkly shardply into the wealthy and the poor, people, the part proportion of happy people would be greater.

Note the third conditional structure.

I think it should be "the number of happy people" not "the part." Am I right?

"Proportion" is better.

 

[Anna232]

No. Say "all our bills".

Neither is right. Say "and that's why".



Note the third conditional structure.

"Proportion" is better.

Thank you so much!!!

 

[teechar]

You're welcome.
Note that there's no need to write a post to thank someone on the forum. Clicking "Thank"/"Like" suffices.