Is it grammatically fine? If not, edit it please

The highlight of the translation is that it centers around the adverse events of the therapy, while the original Chinese text is more focused on the merit of the therapy.

oristarA wrote:

The highlight of the translation is that it centers around the adverse events of the therapy, while the original Chinese text is more focused on the merit of the therapy.

"The highlight of the translation is that it centers around the adverse events of the therapy, while the original Chinese text focuses more on the merit of the threapy - the Chinese word"but" ("dan" in Pinyin) helps explain this situation. The faithfulness of the translation is thus questionable."

"Focuses on" is the direct voice. In terms of style, authorities tend to
recommend it over the passive voice "is focused on."

They're both grammatical.

"Focuses on" is the direct voice. In terms of style, authorities tend to
recommend it over the passive voice "is focused on."

The passive in English
January 24, 2011 @ 7:00 am · Filed by Geoffrey K. Pullum under Prescriptivist poppycock, Syntax, Usage advice, passives


Numerous Language Log posts by me, Mark Liberman, and Arnold Zwicky among others have been devoted to mocking people who denigrate the passive without being able to identify it (see this comprehensive list of Language Log posts about the passive).

http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/grammar/passives.html#passivepostlist

It is clear that some people think The bus blew up is in the passive; that The case took on racial overtones is in the passive; that Dr. Reuben deeply regrets that this happened is in the passive; and so on.

Our grumbling about how these people don't know their passive from a hole in the ground has inspired many people to send us email asking for a clear and simple explanation of what a passive clause is.

...


http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922

Another of your slimy ways to avoid actually addressing the language issues. You should, at the least, get some new nonsense instead of recycling the same old tired responses, C.

They are the same idiots that have been raised under the "expert guidance" of Strunk & White.

"The highlight of the translation is that it centers around the adverse events of the therapy, while the original Chinese text focuses more on the merit of the therapy - the Chinese word"but" ("dan" in Pinyin) helps explain this situation.

In terms of style, authorities tend to recommend it over the passive voice "is focused on."

For example, in the act of explaining that you should "Use the active voice" because it is "more direct and vigorous than the passive", William Strunk and E. B. White assert that "Many a tame sentence . . . can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice" (see section 14 of their book The Elements of Style). Their sentence defies their warning; it contains an instance of the passive voice itself (can be made lively and emphatic).

How so?