docs: Fix typo in Generating Examples section of few-shot prompting doc (#30219)

Thank you for contributing to LangChain!

- [ ] **PR title**: "package: description"
- Where "package" is whichever of langchain, community, core, etc. is
being modified. Use "docs: ..." for purely docs changes, "infra: ..."
for CI changes.
  - Example: "community: add foobar LLM"


- [ ] **PR message**: ***Delete this entire checklist*** and replace
with
    - **Description:** a description of the change
    - **Issue:** the issue # it fixes, if applicable
    - **Dependencies:** any dependencies required for this change
- **Twitter handle:** if your PR gets announced, and you'd like a
mention, we'll gladly shout you out!


- [ ] **Add tests and docs**: If you're adding a new integration, please
include
1. a test for the integration, preferably unit tests that do not rely on
network access,
2. an example notebook showing its use. It lives in
`docs/docs/integrations` directory.


- [ ] **Lint and test**: Run `make format`, `make lint` and `make test`
from the root of the package(s) you've modified. See contribution
guidelines for more: https://python.langchain.com/docs/contributing/

Additional guidelines:
- Make sure optional dependencies are imported within a function.
- Please do not add dependencies to pyproject.toml files (even optional
ones) unless they are required for unit tests.
- Most PRs should not touch more than one package.
- Changes should be backwards compatible.
- If you are adding something to community, do not re-import it in
langchain.

If no one reviews your PR within a few days, please @-mention one of
baskaryan, eyurtsev, ccurme, vbarda, hwchase17.

docs/docs/concepts/few_shot_prompting.mdx

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ At a high-level, the basic ways to generate examples are:
 - User feedback: users (or labelers) leave feedback on interactions with the application and examples are generated based on that feedback (for example, all interactions with positive feedback could be turned into examples).
 - LLM feedback: same as user feedback but the process is automated by having models evaluate themselves.
 
-Which approach is best depends on your task. For tasks where a small number core principles need to be understood really well, it can be valuable hand-craft a few really good examples.
+Which approach is best depends on your task. For tasks where a small number of core principles need to be understood really well, it can be valuable hand-craft a few really good examples.
 For tasks where the space of correct behaviors is broader and more nuanced, it can be useful to generate many examples in a more automated fashion so that there's a higher likelihood of there being some highly relevant examples for any runtime input.
 
 **Single-turn v.s. multi-turn examples**
@@ -39,8 +39,8 @@ Another dimension to think about when generating examples is what the example is
 
 The simplest types of examples just have a user input and an expected model output. These are single-turn examples.
 
-One more complex type if example is where the example is an entire conversation, usually in which a model initially responds incorrectly and a user then tells the model how to correct its answer.
-This is called a multi-turn example. Multi-turn examples can be useful for more nuanced tasks where its useful to show common errors and spell out exactly why they're wrong and what should be done instead.
+One more complex type of example is where the example is an entire conversation, usually in which a model initially responds incorrectly and a user then tells the model how to correct its answer.
+This is called a multi-turn example. Multi-turn examples can be useful for more nuanced tasks where it's useful to show common errors and spell out exactly why they're wrong and what should be done instead.
 
 ## 2. Number of examples