Hjælp til rettelse af lille engelsk passage

if you possess a talent*

and do not depend on diffferent opportunities of your genes, who is trying say something about your possiblity 

to say*

mange tusinde tak for det! :) 

 

hvis der er nogle der kan hjælpe mig med at rette dette stykke igennem ville det være fantastisk:

 

Another negative thing about genetic testing is control. I think it's important not to let the genomes becoming a controlling part of your life with predetermined diseases. The genes shouldn’t stop you, but lead you. Lead you towards a life of purpose of your genes, and if possible a healthier lifestyle. If I knew, like Amy Harmon does, that I was 23% more likely than the average to have heart attack, I would use that information to prevent it. Exactly this is the positive part. To prevent disease can be taken to a whole new level, with plenty of options. 

 

 

TAK! 

An another negative fact *
become*
This is exactly the positive part* man kan dog også sige det andet

 

Tak :) 

 

 

 

While I appreciate Jenss123's desire to help others, advice on the English language and its intricacies is best left to those properly able to give it. Jens' corrections are deplorable at best and serve no other purpose but to add (sic!) errors to the original.   "An another"? En en anden? Den ubestemte artikel er jo allerede indbygget i another (læs: an+other), så hvorfor denne Jenss123 partout skulle klone artiklen overstiger min forstand.   I #1 går det helt galt. Ikke alene pilles der ved noget som var fint og korrekt som det var; rettelserne er desuden pinligt forkerte! "(...) [D]iffferent opportunities of your genes, who is trying say something". Hva'ba'? Who now, what now? • Pro primo: der er ingen grund til udvidet tid.  • Pro secundo: hvis vi endelig skal bruge en relativsætning (og det skal vi ikke, nej), skal vi have en bestemmende af slagsens...så hvad laver det komma dér?  • Pro tertio: verbalkongruens; subjektet er i flertal, så hvorfor bruges der is i stedet for are?    Ydermere overser denne Jenss123 rigtige fejl. Jeg kan kun håbe at spørgeren ikke har nået at aflevere endnu, thi tilbuddene fra "Jensens Stavebøfhus" ikke kan meget andet end at trække en eventuel karakter ned.

 

(Der tages forbehold for tekstens flagrende og hippie-filosofiske natur. Jeg går stille ud fra at teksstumperne er del af en større helhed, for i sig selv virker de meget, hm, indforståede.)

In a society full of new opportunities, especially in medicine and biotechnology, it is it's important to make the right choices. If you have a talent, don’t waist waste it because of your genes. Do what you want, and do not depend on what your genes say you can and cannot do. Life is full of miracles, unexplored adventures and hidden talent. All this should not be thrown away because of a safety limit we put on ourselves.

Another negative thing about genetic testing is the control and surveillance that will ultimately follow. I think believe it's important not to let the your genomes becoming become a controlling part of your life with predetermined diseases (eller måske: ... let your genomes, and the predetermined illnesses they might carry, impede you and lower your life quality).

The (Your) genes shouldn’t stop you; on the contrary, they should lead you towards a life of purpose of your genes, and, if possible, a healthier lifestyle. If I were in Amy Harmon's shoes and had been told I was twenty-three per cent 23% more likely than the average to have a heart attack than the average population, I would use that information to prevent it. Exactly this is the positive part. To Preventing diseases and illnesses can be taken to a whole new level, with plenty of options.