aA young man who slurped tomato pasta. A young man who slurped tomato pasta.

aA young man who slurps tomato pastasauce. A young man who slurps tomato sauce.

a yA Young mMan who sSlurp ts Tomato pPasta. A Young Man who Slurps Tomato Pasta.

aA young man who slurps tomato pasta. A young man who slurps tomato pasta.

I learned about public management　 in today's class. I learned about public management in today's class.

We normally learn “about” a subject or topic.

I learned about public management　 in today's class./In today's class I learned about public management. I learned about public management in today's class./In today's class I learned about public management.

Putting the time element at the end is fine but it feels more natural at the beginning.

I learned public management　 in today's class. I learned public management in today's class.

I learned about public management　 in today's class. I learned about public management in today's class.

I watched a video about a real estate NPO whothat helps the homeless in the second half of the class. I watched a video about a real estate NPO that helps the homeless in the second half of the class.

We use “who” for people and “that/which” for organisations, groups and companies. Homeless is an adjective, “the homeless” is how we would talk about homeless people as a group.

I watched a video about a real estate NPO who helps homeless people in the second half of the class./In the second half of the class we watched a video about a real estate NPO who helps homeless people. I watched a video about a real estate NPO who helps homeless people in the second half of the class./In the second half of the class we watched a video about a real estate NPO who helps homeless people.

Is an NPO a person? If so the correct relative pronoun is "who". If an NPO is an organization (an object) then the relative pronoun is "that".

I watched a video about a real estate NPO whonon-profit that helps homeless in the second half of the class. I watched a video about a real estate non-profit that helps homeless in the second half of the class.

in general, avoid using acronyms until after you've written out what they stand for (non-profit organization) - however, in this case, people more commonly just say non-profit anyways.

I watched a video about a real estate NPO who helps homeless people in the second half of the class. I watched a video about a real estate NPO who helps homeless people in the second half of the class.

"homeless" as a noun is considered a bit dismissive/rude towards homeless people, so it's better to use it as an adjective.

It is a homeless 20-year-old man whoA 20-year-old homeless man particularly interestsed me. A 20-year-old homeless man particularly interested me.

Putting the subject at the start of the sentence is more natural in English.

It iThere was a homeless 20-year-old man who interestsed me. There was a homeless 20-year-old man who interested me.

It is was interested in a homeless 20-year-old man who interests me. I was interested in a homeless 20-year-old man.

Feelings and emotions are more naturally treated as active verbs in English.

When he was 2 years old,their his parents got a divorce, so foster parents raised him. When he was 2 years old, his parents got a divorce, so foster parents raised him.

Since you are talking about one man, you need to use “his” here. You normally have two foster parents, so we use the plural here. If he was raised by only one foster parent we would say “a foster parent”.

When he was 2 years old,their his parents got a divorce, so a foster parent raised him. When he was 2 years old, his parents got a divorce, so a foster parent raised him.

When he was 2 years old,their his parents got a divorce, so foster parents raised him. When he was 2 years old, his parents got a divorce, so foster parents raised him.

When he was 2 years old,their his parents got a divorce, so a foster parent raised him. When he was 2 years old, his parents got a divorce, so a foster parent raised him.

While parents are plural, it's actually the subject and not the object which requires "their". "their" is also sometimes used as a pronoun for a person of unknown gender, but since you've been using "he" so far, his gender isn't unknown, so it's more natural to use "he" in the middle clause too.

He could get a job after the graduation ofng from high school, but he lost it in February, 2026. He could get a job after graduating from high school, but he lost it in February 2026.

He couldwas able to get a job after the graduation ofng high school, but he lost it in February, 2026. He was able to get a job after graduating high school, but he lost it in February 2026.

Someone smarter than me would be able to tell you if you need the commas here

He could get a job after the graduation ofng high school, but he lost it in February, of 2026. He could get a job after graduating high school, but he lost it in February of 2026.

i'm assuming he lost his job, if you want to say that he didn't graduate high school then you would instead write: "He could get a job after graduating high school, but he never did." Also, it would make a bit more sense for us as the reader to know when he graduated high school, or how long after graduation he lost his job. February 2026 means nothing to us without another point of reference. (ex. he lost it just 3 months later.)

He could get a job after the graduation ofng from high school, but he lost it in February, 2026. He could get a job after graduating from high school, but he lost it in February 2026.

"the graduation" would be like the ceremony itself, but the state of being a graduate is more naturally talked about using the verb here.

When he becoame a homeless man and was stranded, he found thate NPO and asked for help. When he became homeless and was stranded, he found the NPO and asked for help.

This story takes place in the past, so we need to use the past tense of “To become” which is became. We also need to use “To find” and “To ask” in the past tense. ‘That’ has been changed to ‘the’ because you have already know about the NPO.

When he become a homeless man/became homeless and was stranded, he found that NPO and asked for help. When he become a homeless man/became homeless and was stranded he found that NPO and asked for help.

When he become a homeless man and was stranded, he found that NPO and asked for help. When he become a homeless man and was stranded, he found that NPO and asked for help.

When he become a homeless man and was stranded, he found that NPO and asked for help. When he become a homeless man and was stranded, he found that NPO and asked for help.

He could not receive welfare because he lost his house when he lost ahis job He could not receive welfare because he lost his house when he lost his job

‘His job’ is more natural here.

He could not receive welfare because he lost his house when he lost ahis job He could not receive welfare because he lost his house when he lost his job

He could not receive welfare because he lost his house when he lost ahis job. He could not receive welfare because he lost his house when he lost his job.

He could not receive welfare because he lost his house when he lost ahis job He could not receive welfare because he lost his house when he lost his job

"a job" would be non-specific, but since it's a specific job loss that impacted him and you've already mentioned that job, it's more natural to use "his job" than "a job"

(In Japan, Hhaving a house is one of the requirements to receive welfaere) (In Japan, having a house is one of the requirements to receive welfare)

(In Japan, Hhaving a house is one of the requirement tos for receiveing welfaere). (In Japan, having a house is one of the requirements for receiving welfare).

(In Japan, Hhaving a house is one of the requirements to receive welfaere.) (In Japan, having a house is one of the requirements to receive welfare.)

(In Japan, Hhaving a housplace to live is one of the requirements to receive welfaere) (In Japan, having a place to live is one of the requirements to receive welfare)

"having a house" sounds like owning a house, but I assume that the requirement is not about owning a house, but having one where you're allowed to live. In that case "having a place to live" or "having a permanent address" are better terms to use, as they also include e.g. renters.

SThe supporters asked him whether he knowew any adults who canould help him or not. The supporters asked him whether he knew any adults who could help him.

We use “the supporters” because we are talking about a specific group of people who work for the NPO. Again, we need to use the past tense of “To know” here because this story takes place in the past. And the conditional form of “Can” (could) because the supporters were asking him if there was a possibility of receiving help from an adult.

Supporters asked him whether or not he knoew adults who canould help him or not. Supporters asked him whether or not he knew adults who could help him.

Supporters asked him whether he knoew adults who canould help him or not. Supporters asked him whether he knew adults who could help him or not.

The asking is in the past tense, so the question is also in the past tense.

Then,hHe said NO.no because He said no because

We tend to avoid using capital letters ‘NO’ in writing unless it is a loud shout in the story. We use ‘because’ when we are about to introduce a reason for something (which you do in your next sentence). - He said no BECAUSE he was afraid of them.

Then,hHe said NOno. He said no.

You don't really need "then" here.

Then, he said NO.no, Then, he said no,

Then, he said NO. Then, he said NO.

"NO" here comes across as either the homeless man shouted it (aggressively even), or you the writer are shouting it. This might be what you wanted, but it is very strong.

he said that he was afraid of them. he was afraid of them.

hHe said that he was afraid of them. He said that he was afraid of them.

hHe said that he was afraid of them. He said that he was afraid of them.

His foster parents became like a strangers and told him to do his own things bytake care of himself. His foster parents became like strangers and told him to take care of himself.

‘To take care of oneself’ is the natural idiom here.

His foster parent became like a stranger and told him to do his own things by himself. His foster parent became like a stranger and told him to do things by himself.

ActualHonestly, I’m a not perssomeone who thinks that he doesn’t have anyhas no responsibility . Honestly, I’m not someone who thinks that he has no responsibility.

We say ‘not someone who…’

Actually, I’m a not person who thinks that he doesn’t have/bear any responsibility . Actually, I’m a not person who thinks that he doesn’t have/bear any responsibility.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. An alternative might be: "Actually, I'm not a person who thinks he isn't partially responsible." If I understand you correctly.

Actually, I’m a not person who thinks that he doesn’t have any responsibility . Actually, I’m a not person who thinks that he doesn’t have any responsibility.

I think this is a better phrasing: "Actually, I'm of the opinion that he should take some responsibility." double-negatives are difficult to understand

Actually, I’m a not person who think that he doesn’t have any responsibility . Actually, I’m a not person who think that he doesn’t have any responsibility.

I felt a bit of anger, wondering why he couldn't (just) rely on adults. I felt a bit of anger, wondering why he couldn't (just) rely on adults.

Using ‘just’ here helps to show your frustration, as it emphasises how easy it seems from the outside (your point of view).

I felt a bit of anger, wondering why he couldn't rely on other adults. I felt a bit of anger, wondering why he couldn't rely on other adults.

"on adults" implies that the person you're talking about is not an adult. But you described him as "a man" earlier, so it sounds like he is.

He　 said that ”I want to eat pasta with granted cheese in May (he got a job in a April),. Then in June, I want to eat it with granteted cheese and sausages in June ,. By July, I want to finish eating it in July with slurpingally sit back and slurp down a full bowl of tomato pasta”. He said ”I want to eat pasta with grated cheese in May (he got a job in April). Then in June, I want to eat it with grated cheese and sausages. By July, I want to finally sit back and slurp down a full bowl of tomato pasta”.

1) Grated cheese is the correct choice 2) I would move the information about time to the start of each sentence so that it is easier to understand the order of events. May —> June —> July. 3) We use the idiom ‘To sit back’ to show that someone is relaxed and secure. ‘To slurp down a full bowl’ is the correct sentence here.

He　 said: that”I want to eat pasta with granted cheese in May (he got a job in a April), I want to eat it with granteed cheese and sausages in June , and I want to finish by eating it in July withhile slurping tomato pastasauce/pasta sauce". He said: ”I want to eat pasta with grated cheese in May (he got a job in April), I want to eat it with grated cheese and sausages in June, and I want to finish by eating it in July while slurping tomato sauce/pasta sauce".

Do you mean "grated" as in "cut into small pieces"?

He　 said, that”I want to eat pasta with granted cheese in May, " (he got a job in a April), "I want to eat it with granteted cheese and sausages in June , I want to finish eating it in July with slurping tomato pasta." He said, ”I want to eat pasta with grated cheese in May, " (he got a job in a April), "I want to eat it with grated cheese and sausages in June, I want to finish eating it in July with slurping tomato pasta."

He　 said that ”I want to eat pasta with granted cheese in May (he got a job in a April),. I want to eat it with granteed cheese and sausages in June , I want to finish eating it in July with slurpby eating tomato pasta." He said that ”I want to eat pasta with granted cheese in May (he got a job in a April). I want to eat it with granted cheese and sausages in June, I want to finish eating it in July by eating tomato pasta."

In English, the use of slurping to describe the process of eating pasta really focuses on the actual, physical act of ingesting on it by sucking on it. If you're not focusing on that for some reason, it's more natural to say eating.

(pPasta is a cheap dish in Japan). (Pasta is a cheap dish in Japan).

(pPasta is a cheap dish in Japan). Pasta is a cheap dish in Japan.

He slurpedate it. He ate it.

He doesn’t know not only the way of eating pasta,but also should do ,just lack the knowledge of how to eat pasta correctly; but also how to ask adults for help ,and so on. He doesn’t just lack the knowledge of how to eat pasta correctly; but also how to ask adults for help.

‘To lack [something]’ = to not have something.

He doesn’idn't know not only thethe right way tof eating pasta,but also should do , didn't know how to ask adults for help ,and so on, etc. He didn't know the right way to eat pasta, didn't know how to ask adults for help, etc.

He doesn’t know not only the way ofhow to eating pasta,but also should do , just like he doesn't know how to ask adults for help ,and so on. He doesn’t know how to eat pasta, just like he doesn't know how to ask adults for help.

I think this is what this sentence is trying to say ? This is the only one I can't make sense of

He doesn’t knowjust not only the way ofknow how to eating pasta, but also what should do ,he do, how to ask adults for help , and so on. He doesn’t just not know how to eat pasta, but also what should he do, how to ask adults for help, and so on.

The problem aboutwith homeless people is that homeless havepeople have/bear responsibility though, i. It is not caused because ofy their ignorance andor they have no chanceir inability to know what they actually should do. The problem with homeless people is that homeless people have/bear responsibility. It is not caused by their ignorance or their inability to know what they should do.

"To bear responsibility" means to be responsible for. Literally "to bear" means to carry. However, it is worth memorizing it in this context because this is about the only time we use that verb. More broadly, however, the meaning of your sentence here is confused. In the first half you seem to suggest that homeless people bear responsibility for their homelessness while in the second half you seem to suggest that they don't. I have corrected the second half to fit logically with the first half (although I don't agree with the argument).

The problem about homeless is thatness is not that the homeless have no responsibility though, it cause's because of their ignorance and t. They have no chance to know what they actually should do. The problem about homelessness is not that the homeless have no responsibility though, it's because of their ignorance. They have no chance to know what they actually should do.

just so you know: "ignorant" does objectively mean being unaware/uninformed of something, but it is often used as an insult, and with a topical as controversial as homelessness, it can come across the wrong way to say that the homeless are homeless because they are ignorant. It isn't wrong, but using another word would help your argument. Saying, for example, that they "suffer the consequences of an uneducated background", or that they're "lacking in life experiences" wouldn't carry a negative connotation like "ignorant."

The problem about homeless people is that even though homeless people have responsibility though, it cause because of their ignorance and, because of what they don't know, they have no chance to know what they actually should do. The problem about homeless people is that even though homeless people have responsibility, because of what they don't know, they have no chance to know what they actually should do.

"ignorance" is a harsh word in English. It's less 無知 and more バカ / アホ

I hope he can die after he knowenjoys a long, peaceful life in which he learns how to eat pasta. I hope he enjoys a long, peaceful life in which he learns how to eat pasta.

I understand what you are trying to say but in English the phrase “I hope [person] dies after [something]” sounds a little threatening. To avoid this we will normally rephrase the sentence, swapping ‘he dies’ for ‘he lives’.

I hope he can die after he knowlearns how to eat pasta. I hope he can die after he learns how to eat pasta.

Without having seen the film or fully understanding your argument this sounds quite harsh and sudden. I have corrected it for grammar only.

I hope he can die after he knows how to eat pastagets to eat as much pasta as he wants before he dies. I hope he gets to eat as much pasta as he wants before he dies.

Saying "I hope he can die" sounds very morbid lol, even the way I rephrased it sounds kind of creepy, I think saying this would be entirely better: "I hope he lives a life full of delicious pasta."

I hope he can die after he knowlearns how to eat pasta before he dies. I hope he learns how to eat pasta before he dies.

The original phrasing comes across as wishing death upon the homeless man, because it puts "dying" in the position of what you want to happen.

The problem aboutwith the homeless is that homeless have responsibility though, it cause because of their ignorance and they are likely die without knowing what should they dotheir lack of guidance means that they suffer in silence, unable to ask for help. The problem with the homeless is that their lack of guidance means that they suffer in silence, unable to ask for help.

Ignorance is a very harsh word in English, it can feel like an insult in some cases. If we use ‘a lack of guidance’ it moves the blame away from the homeless themselves and emphasises the fact that they had nobody to support them or offer guidance. ‘To suffer in silence’ is the English idiom for someone who is going through a tough situation without any help.