Taking the stuff off outside ofthe house Taking stuff off outside the house

Taking the stuff off outside of the house Taking stuff off outside of the house

sounds more natural. "the stuff" makes it sound like we were already talking about "stuff" we take off.

In Türkiye, It is usual that eEverybody takes off their shoes out ofto go into the house. In Türkiye, Everybody takes off their shoes to go into the house.

'it is usual' and 'everyone' is a little redundant

In Türkiye, It is usual thatit's normal for everybody to takes off their shoes out ofside the house. In Türkiye, it's normal for everybody to take off their shoes outside the house.

It's much more natural to use contractions: "it's" over "it is", "they're" over "they are", etc.

In Türkiye, Iit is usunormal that everybody takes off their shoes out of house. In Türkiye, it is normal that everybody takes off their shoes out of house.

Also, there is the English spelling of Turkey, but I don't think that's exactly obligatory. "Normal" sounds more, well, normal/usual.

It avoids many illness and remainkeeps the house clean. It avoids many illness and keeps the house clean.

It avoidprevents many illness and remainkeeps the house clean. It prevents many illness and keeps the house clean.

It avoids many illness and remains the house remains clean. It avoids many illness and the house remains clean.

or "keeps the house clean"

It does not make sense that the shoes, which touches every places such as toilet, streets, muds and dumps, are brought into the house. It does not make sense that the shoes, which touches places such as toilet, streets, muds and dumps, are brought into the house.

It does non't make sense that the shoes, which touches every placesthing, such as toilet floors, streets, muds, and dumpstrash, are brought into the house. It doesn't make sense that the shoes, which touch everything, such as toilet floors, streets, mud, and trash, are brought into the house.

This is another example where it's much much more natural to use a contraction. A dump is a specific place when garbage is brought to. I assume in this instance you just mean the kind of rubbish/trash you'd find on the streets, and not the actual dump.

It does not make sense that the shoes, which touches every places such as toilet, streets, muds and dumps, are brought into the house. It does not make sense that shoes, which touches every places such as toilet, streets, muds and dumps, are brought into the house.

as a general item, shoes doesn't need "the". If we start talking about a more specific pair of shoes, then we could say "the shoes." Maybe think of it like this. Can you point to the specific thing you're naming in the sentence? Not in this case, so it's just "shoes." Another example using "the" could be "Are the shoes outside the house?"

My wife always gets me to change what I'm wear outdoor when I aming when I'm coming back into the house. My wife always gets me to change what I'm wearing when I'm coming back into the house.

My wife getreminds me to change what I wear outdoors when I amcome back to the house. My wife reminds me to change what I wear outdoors when I come back to the house.

"gets me to" sounds like you always forget or are annoyed about it

I think it is easy way to keep the house clean without using any chemical stuff. I think it is easy way to keep the house clean without using any chemical stuff.

I think it is easythis makes it easier to keep the house clean without using any chemical stuffs. I think this makes it easier to keep the house clean without using any chemicals.

OR: "I think doing this makes it easy to keep the house clean without using any chemicals."

I think it is easy to keep the house clean without using any chemical stuff. I think it is easy to keep the house clean without using any chemical stuff.

This changes the focus of the writing. Maybe you could say something like "Speaking of keeping the house clean, I think..." or "Anyway, I think ..."

On the other hand, the chemical we uses for as cleaning sticks on thefor dusts, that we cannot see, and they goes into our body by inhaling. On the other hand, the chemical we use as cleaning sticks for dust, that we cannot see, goes into our body by inhaling.

On the other hand, tThe chemicals we uses for cleaning sticks on the dusts that we cannot see and they go into our body byremain invisibly on surfaces and get inhalinged. The chemicals we use for cleaning remain invisibly on surfaces and get inhaled.

On the other hand = an point or argument which contradicts what you just said. Here, you have said you want to use less chemicals, then followed it up by saying chemicals are unhealthy - these points are not contradictory, so "on the other hand" doesn't work here. "Stick on the dusts" doesn't make sense to me at all, sorry. So, I rephrased it to be a bit more natural.

On the other hand, thWhen we use chemical we uses for cleaning, they sticks on to the dusts that we cannot see and they go into our body bythrough inhaling. When we use chemicals for cleaning, they stick to the dust that we cannot see and they go into our body through inhaling.

On the other hand is a good phrase, but I don't think it fits well here.

That's why, the less we use the chemical, the more healthy body we have. That's why, the less we use the chemical, the more healthy body we have.

That's why, the less we use the cleaning chemicals, the more healty bodhy we havare. That's why the less we use the cleaning chemicals, the more healthy we are.

That's why, the less we use thecleaning chemicals, the more healthy bodyies we have. That's why, the less we use cleaning chemicals, the more healthy bodies we have.

I think I would say "That's why, when we use cleaning chemicals less, our bodies are healthier."