My teacher has asked me to write a brief commentary about the article posted in this link: https://www.italki.com/notebook/2928988/entry/757567  

I have tried to write a nice essay but I only got five out of ten. I have written the following commentary and my professor has done these suggestions  highlighted in yellow and  italics. I really need some help so I would be very thankful if you correct my mistakes, give me some tips or complete my work. Thank you very much! 

Prime Minister Theresa May is a very strong advocate of grammar schools and she plans to bring them back with the promise of making them “inclusive and not exclusive” but how true is it? This issue is widely questioned by many political groups like Liberal Democrats and Labour, who claim that everybody should have the same opportunities to receive the best education. Why is May's plan not useful for this?

In order to defend her proposal, Mrs. May considers that the problem of quality of education will continue as it depends on the children’s background. This is a crucial fact but creating a “new generation of grammars” will only increase this difficulty. Instead of background, explain "selection by house price". Clarily.

There are many reasons that demonstrate that grammar schools only benefit one type of social group: the elites. Firstly, the eleven plus exam completely segregates children depending on their family wealth because privileged can afford tutoring in order to pass. Furthermore, this exam will decide on the future of many children and it will select and educational elite, whereas those who fail will not have the same chances to succeed. As a result this will have an impact on the vision of the world for each group and it will be determined at a very early age. It is not really only about the elite.Explain.

Mrs. May should not focus on creating a new selective system but on solving the failures of the current one. Explain the concluison

Get to the point and explain better the terms "inclusive" vs "social mobility disaster"