The only problem with this sentence I can see is that we serve people's interests, not their interest. That might be considered a grammar error - we expect plural objects (interests) for plural subjects (youths). It doesn't seem like a catastrophic one, the sentence can still be easily understood.
By the way, I'm aware I'm a comma splicer. I casually break grammatical rules when I feel like making things read more like how I talk.
It wouldn't have been given a C, and I say this as someone who was a TF/TA for these kinds of classes at UCSD tier programs, and as such spent hours grading these kinds of essays.
I think there are flaws with the article's argument, but your retort is not touching on those.
And yes, my grammar suck - to get back on (your) topic.
That's the worst, most tortured string of English I've read all month.
Just because OP is being snotty doesn't mean you aren't as well. If I were grading either of you guys in an academic context (which I spent sleepless nights on in my academic career) I wouldn't have given either of you guys marks on this specific question because you are ignoring the prompt and not engaging with the content.
Perhaps by you, in one particular context (as a grader in an English class?). Your particular practice doesn't create universal truth by fiat.
> I wouldn't have given either of you guys marks on this specific question
This is funny, because you are arbitrarily assuming my goals are whatever yours are here. In the academic context, you're going into a random classroom and handing out grades without even checking what the assignment is.