煩請改文法～

According to the second principle, the opportunity cost refers to something you give up to get another. Firms will make comparision between cost and benefit because the opportunity cost is their turnover. In order to keep the meats' price going up, firms have to give up the residents' determination of purchasing meats. It is the cost relative to decision-making .

Hope this helps!

En ce qui concerne le deuxième principe, est le coût de quelque
chose ce que vous donnez l'obtenez jusqu'à. Les sociétés comparent
entre les coûts et les avantages, et le coût d'opportunité est leur
volume des affaires . Afin de continuer à augmenter le prix des
viandes, ils doivent renoncer le résidant à des achats la
détermination des viandes. C'est le coût approprié pour la prise de
décision

With regard to the second principle, the cost of something is what you give up to get it. Firms compare between the costs and benefits "along with" the opportunity cost is their business volume. In order to continue "increasing the price of meats", they have to give up the "residential demands" of the meats. It is the relevant cost for decision making.

I'm really unsure about if there are grammatical mistakes in this essay. Just try to re-write a bit as per the below. Please just regard this as a reference. :)

With regard to the second principle, the cost of something is what you give up to get it. Firms compare between the costs and benefits "along with" the opportunity cost is their business volume. In order to continue "increasing the price of meats", they have to give up the "residential demands" of the meats. It is the relevant cost for decision making.