[golf_sceptic]

It would help me if you could read this and tell me if you agree with it or have issues with it.

If one of my students wrote it, I'd say that they demonstrate a pretty good understanding of the ideas, but I'd suggest they tighten up some of the expression.

For example

If you are in an automobile when the brakes are abruptly applied, then you will feel pushed toward the front of the car. You may actually have to extend you arms to prevent yourself from going forward toward the dashboard. However, there is really no force pushing you forward. The car, since it is slowing down, is an accelerating, or non-inertial, frame of reference, and the law of inertia no longer holds if we use this non-inertial frame to judge your motion.

might become

If you are in an automobile when the brakes are abruptly applied, then it is easy to believe that you are being pushed toward the front of the car. You may actually have to extend you arms to save yourself from a collision with the dashboard. A camera mounted inside the car would certainly show you accelerating forward. However, when viewed from outside the car there is no sign of any force pushing you forward. The difference in perception is that the car, since it is slowing down, is an accelerating, or non-inertial, frame of reference, and the law of inertia no longer holds if we use this non-inertial frame to judge your motion.

I could go a bit further in modifying the text, but you get the idea. Basically it is fine, but some of the wording could mislead somebody who does not already understand the subject. I probably would not use the "law of inertia" in my explanation, but would not tell a student to remove it.