Well, a simple dictionary lookup tells us a lot. Let's have a look at oxford online.
Basically, form as a noun is _always countable, except in the following cases:
-1.2 [MASS NOUN] Style, design, and arrangement in an artistic work as distinct from its content:
these videos are a triumph of form over content
-2. A particular way in which a thing exists or appears:
essays in book form
energy in the form of light
-4. [MASS NOUN] The customary or correct method or procedure:
an excessive concern for legal form and precedent
-7. [MASS NOUN] The state of a sports player or team with regard to their current standard of play:
they are one of the best teams around on current form
-7.2 A person’s mood and state of health:
she seemed to be on good form
-7.3 British INFORMAL A criminal record:
they both had form
The only use that is confusing, because one example uses form as a mass noun, the other as a countable noun, is meaning 2. Of course, that is also the way form is used in your text.
In the first instance in your text, the sentence follow exactly the example given: in book form versus in electronic form. The question is where the article comes from in the second instance.
In the second instance of form in your text, the reference is not to electronic form in a general sense, but it is about a specific shape (form) in which the information is to be presented: a shape that can be processed by computers. The simple transformation into electronic form as mentioned earlier is no longer adequate to describe it, we need now to specify a specific electronic form. We can conclude there are other forms which may be electronic, but can not be processed by a computer.
So when we describe the way in which a thing appears or exists, we only use form as a mass noun when we refer to the general concept described by that way of existence:
Literature usually appears in book form.
But when we talk about a specific instance or type of that way of existence, we use it as a countable noun:
Paper encyclopaedia were not exactly a portable book form.
Note that in the construction in the form of , form is always countable!
The first is not grammatically correct; "go [verb]" is short for "go to [verb]" or "go and [verb]." The second, while there's a typo (which is obviously accidental since you spelled it right the first time), is grammatically correct. However, I would not recommend it for several reasons:
- It's in first person; you are writing an essay about how you make a salad, I would write it in the imperative mood (simply "First, buy the ingredients").
- The phrase "go to [verb]" is colloquial. This may be fine, depending upon the assignment, but if your teacher cares about that kind of thing then you might want to avoid it.
- You don't really need "go to" at all, unless you want to emphasize that you are going somewhere in order to buy the ingredients. "First, I buy the ingredients" might be preferable.
Ultimately, you may want to ask your teacher as the best way to do this depends upon what your teacher wants.
Best Answer
Your sentence is grammatically correct. There are two changes you should consider: