I'm gonna have to disagree with Ben. I am very impressed by your sentences, and I think only minor changes will clear up the meanings. 1. Scandals may be useful because they reveal the dark side of society and sometimes can bring corruption in governments or medical systems to light Here, I chose "dark side" because of your choice to use "bring to light". A bit of word play. 2. The year 2013 witnessed a group of highly-ranked officials in China resigning due to corruption or adultery. For the corrupt, their unprecedented illegal assets sometimes can reach millions of RMB. I dropped "has" in the first sentence because it is now 2014. Changed "going off the office" to "resigning" because it's shorter and clearer. Finally, I moved "unprecedented" to a better location and removed "an" before "millions". However, your second sentence here didn't pair well with the first because the last word is adultery, so I added "For the corrupt," to make it clearer. 3. Most importantly, food safety problem draws our attention more than any other situation can ever parallel. I believe this is what you meant, so I changed the wording. 4. These scandals intrude on the privacy of people and hardly do any good for society except for entertainment. I just replaced "to the" with "for" because it's more natural this way. It's not necessary to say "the society". I am reading these sentences as separate instances. I think you should post your entire writing in the notebook section so better corrections can be made to the entire piece. Even so, making mistakes and pushing yourself is the best way to improve, and I understood your meanings quite clearly, so I think your sentences were successful.

I think the first sentence is ok except it is a little general on the side of society and more specific on the side of the officials. You could say "food scandals reveal the unprecedented lawlessness and corruption amongst government officials" for example but that only considers the officials and not the society as a whole so I'd follow with another sentence - think about what you think food scandals reveal about society in general, not only officials. The second sentence is unclear, I'm not sure what you mean by "officials in China going off the office". Do you mean the highly ranked officials were fired? Or did they no longer like the office? Either way it needs some more clarity. Also "an unprecedented millions" - do you think the "an" is correct? The third sentence - firstly how many problems are there? THE food problem draws, or food problemS draw. Secondly, "no other time can parallel" seems a bit awkward. Perhaps you can think of another way to express this? Even simply "compare" instead of "parallel". In the fourth sentence, the word "people" is again broad and leaves me feeling detached from what you are trying to express. The food scandals don't only intrude on other people's privacy, but on mine too, so try to make it feel relevant to readers. To indivduals. One other comment on this last point, "hardly do any good to society" implies that there is a little bit of a positive side to come out as a result if food scandals, it's not all entirely negative. In your analysis have you mentioned the positive side elsewhere? If not perhaps you should, or change this sentence too. Well done, keep at it and read as broadly as you can for useful phrases and expressions. The Financial Times, The Economist, and Forbes Magazine are all great starting points.

The best way to learn is to search the New York Times and the Economist web sites for thoughtful articles on these subjects. You will see all the analysis and the correct vocabulary. There is little point rewriting your sentences or doing minor repairs to them, because they are not nearly there yet. You need to do the necessary work first before you venture to write about these rather serious and oft-discussed topics. This is not meant to be discouraging but is realistic advice.

Kailin, it occurs to me that one important thing you need to be clear in your mind is "What does the word 'scandal' mean?" It means "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage". Scandals are never "useful", except in the sense that a misdeed may be exploited by an opponent to demolish the protagonist. You see this "use" in politics a great deal. You need to distinguish these one from another: - the scandal itself - the truthful and professional investigation and reporting of scandals - responsible journalism - the sensational and unethical use of journalism - freedom of information and the press - manipulation of information The scandal itself is not the same thing as the reporting of it. And then consider: - the facts of the scandal - its consequences and aftermath - its underlying human and systemic causes - remedies - lessons to be learnt - any good that has flowed from it? You will have a good essay if you can address these angles with the correct vocabulary and include the principal arguments that have already been put forward in society and intelligent discussion, and if on top of that you present your own point of view. Scandals are never "useful". The lessons from it may result in some good, but of course there may be a heavy price to pay for these lessons. More importantly, scandals in public life beg the question of how to solve the existing problems. Scandals in private life are in a different domain altogether.