Today, I read a news article.

It talked about the leather industry in kKashmir.

"the leather industry" is a specific thing (as opposed to just "industry" which is a general concept)

Since Kashmir is a place name, it should have a capital letter.

I don't know if this article talk onwas talking about a specially country.

I believe that it's a international problem and not only a problem for one or two countryies.

When you're listing counts and you have more than one count, then the noun is treated as plural.

Correct: "one country", "two countries", "one or two countries", "zero or one countries"
Incorrect: "one countries", "two country", "one or two country", "zero or one country"

I think it's good thing for the world because the kashmircashmere production is bad for animals.

The material is _usually_ called cashmere in English, though it's not unheard of to see it called Kashmir. I think most people would consider calling the fabric Kashmir a mistake though.

Many factories, a lot in c(including a lot in / mostly in) China, have been hurting animals for thé kasmireir wool.

"including a lot in" would mean there are many factories involved, and many are in China, but also many of them are elsewhere. China may not have the largest share.

"mostly in China" would mean the largest share of those factories is in China.

So the wool taken from the animals that was originally produced in Kashmir is usually known as Cashmere (wool) or sometimes Kashmir (wool) when talking about is as something that is sold. And it is sometimes just abbreviated to Cashmere when talking about it that way. But you wouldn't call it just Cashmere/Kashmir when you're talking about it in the context of the animal - then you'd just call it wool.

They have been killing many animals, even aliving ones.

Not fully sure what you mean here. If something isn't alive, then it's not possible to kill it.

This moviesese (?) are horrible.

Not fully sure what you meant by movies here. If you meant "moves", then "actions" would be more natural here.

We must be vigilant when we wouldant to buy kcashmirere.

To buy aBuying cheaper clothes made with Kcashmir,ere is bad productionpromoting bad practices.

I had to take a guess here at what you meant, I think this is it?

Distinctions:

Cloth - refers to either unfinished cloth, or simple sheets of fabric (like dish clothes). Stuff you wear is called "clothes" or "clothing"

"cheaper cloth with Kashmir" - would mean buying something that combines Kashmir with cheaper fabrics, as opposed to solely being made of something more expensive. However, it sounds like you're criticising the production of this in all contexts, so it wouldn't make sense to criticise something for not using enough, so I think you mean the clothes made from cashmere are cheap clothes.

"bad production" would mean it fails to actually make clothing. But you seem to be saying that the problem is not that it makes bad clothes, but that the way it makes them is bad, so it's better to say bad practices.

You might believe that may be your cloth made withr clothes might be made by killing many animals dead alive.

"dead alive" is contradictory, you can't be both at once. I think the corrected version is what you were going with.

Today, I read a news article.

It talkedwas about the leather industry in kKashmir.

It explained that many factories have been closing.

I don't know if this article talk on a specially country.

I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this but this sentence is most likely incorrect.

I believe that it's an international problem and not only for one or twoa few specific countryies.

I think it's good thing for world because the kashmir is bad for animals.

Many factories, a lot in china, have been hurting animals for thé kasmir.

It talked about the leather industry in kashmir.

I don't know if this article is talk oning about a speciallyfic country.

I believe that it's a international problem and not only for one or two countryies.

I think it's good thing for the world because the kashmir is bad for animals.

I saw several documentaries on this topic.

To me, "I saw several documentaries on this topic", reads like you seen them, on netflix for example, but did not watch them. If you actually sat and watched several documentaries I would say "I watched several documentaries on this topic"

Many factories, a lotmany in china, have been hurting animals for thée kasmir.

They have been killing many animals even alives.

For the animals to be killed, they must first be alive. So "even alives" sounds nonsensical because we cannot kill dead animals.

Thisese movies are horrible.

We must be vigilant when we would to buy kashmir.

To buy a cheaper cloth with Kashmir, is bad production.

Im not quite understanding what you want to say here. Perhaps "Cheaper cloth with kashmir, can be produced badly"

You might believe that may be your cloth made with many dead animals dead alive.

dead & alive are two opposing states. The animals cannot be both dead, and alive.

Today, I read a news article.

“New” refers to something that is simply not old. “News” refers specifically to reported events in a newspaper, television or radio.

It talked about the leather industry in kashmir.

In English we typically use the articles “the”, “a”, “an” etc before nouns

I don't know if this article talk onspoke about a specially country.

“talk on” would be awkward usage here. Confusingly “spoke” is generally used as the past tense of “talk”. In the present tense one would say “talks about”. In the past one would say “spoke about”

I believe that it's an international problem and not only for one or two country.ies

We use “an” as the indefinite article if the next word begins with a vowel. It’s just a pronunciation convenience. And we would use the plural of “country” if we have said “one or two”

I think it's a good thing for the world because the kashmir is bad for animals.animals are apparently frequently mistreated in Kashmir

We use an indefinite article “a” even though an adjective comes before the noun ‘thing”. The rest of the sentence is really a case of muddled syntax. I have replaced “Kashmir is bad for animals” with a more natural sounding phrase

I sawhave seen several documentaries on this topic.

“I saw” isn’t wrong but it’s a bit awkward

They have been killing many animals even alives.

I’m not sure of the meaning you are going for here.

Thisese movies are horrible.

We would use the plural “these” in place of the singular “this”

We must be vigilant when we would to buy from kashmir.

We are not buying Kashmir itself. We are buying “from” Kashmir

To buy a cheaper cloth with Kashmir, is badmay mean production. methods unkind to animals

I’m struggling with your meaning here but I have replaced-written what I think you are going for

You might believe that may beIt’s possible that your cloth was made with many animals dead alivekilled in the process.

Again, I’m struggling with your meaning but I have re-written what I think you were going for

It talked about the leather industry in kKashmir.

Kashmir the place or cashmere the fabric? If cashmere, it usually doesn't refer to leather (though that exists).

I don't know if this article talk ons about a speciallyfic country.

I believe that it's a international problem and not only for one or two countryies.

I think it's good thing for the world because the kcashmirere is bad for animals.

Many factories, a lot in cChina, have been hurting animals for thé kasmir.e cashmere

They have been killing many animals even alives.

not sure what 'even alives' was supposed to mean, but as written is incorrect.

So, iI'm not going to cry if many Kcashmirere factories are closing.

We must be vigilant when we wouldtry to buy kcashmirere.

To buy a cheaper cloth with Kcashmirere, is bad production.

You might not believe that may be your clothing is made with many dead animals dead alive.

Some rephrasing based on what I think you mean.

Reading News In English

It talked about the leather industry in kKashmir.

I don't know if this article talk oned about a speciallyfic country.

I believe that it's an international problem and not only for one or two countryies.

I think it's good thing for the world because the kKashmir is bad for animals.

Many factories, a lot of them in cChina, have been hurting animals for thé ke Kashmir.

They have been killing many animals even alives.

Thisese movies are horrible.

So, i'I’m not going to cry if many Kashmir factories are closinge.

We must be vigilant when we wouldant to buy kKashmir.

Vigilant is correct but it sounds pretentious — more common is “careful”

To buy a cheaper cloth with Kashmir, is bad for production.

You might believe that may be your cloth made with many animals dead alive.

Sorry, I was unable to understand this one

Today, I read a news article.

It talked about the leather industry in kKashmir.

It explained that many factories have been closing.

I don't know if this article is talk oning about a speciallyfic country.

I believe that it's an international problem and, not only for one or two country.ies.

I think it's a good thing for the world because the kashmir is bad for animals.

I saw several documentaries on this topic.

Many factories, a lot in cChina, have been hurting animals for thé kasmir.

They have been killing many animals even alives.

Thisese movies are horrible.

So, iI'm not going to cry if many Kashmir factories are closing.

We must be vigilant when we wouldant to buy kKashmir.

To buy a cheaper cloth withfrom Kashmir, is a bad production.idea.

You might believe that it may be your clothhave been made with many animals, dead or alive.