Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes; similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods. The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of social benefits.
First of all, the taxes discourage people from indulging in unhealthy behaviors. Raising taxes on cigarettes, for instance, leads people to buy fewer of them. Smoking has declined as taxes on tobacco have risen, showing that these taxes do work to make society healthier. It can be expected that imposing similar taxes on unhealthy food and beverages would help reduce obesity rates.
Second, taxes of this kind are financially fair. When people get sick as a result of their smoking or eating unhealthy foods, they create medical costs. It is unfair that everyone in the society, including nonsmokers and people who follow a healthy diet, should contribute equally to covering these costs. Taxing people who engage in unhealthy behaviors creates extra income that can be used to cover the medical costs. In this way, some of the financial burden is shifted from all of society to just those who choose to participate in the unhealthy activities.
Finally, the high rate of taxation on cigarettes significantly increases revenue for the government. In addition to using this tax revenue on medical assistance, governments often use the revenue for other projects that benefit public welfare, such as building stadiums or creating public parks. Even basic government-supported services like public education benefit from these taxes. Thus, the taxes on cigarettes, and the proposed taxes on unhealthy foods, benefit everyone.
In this set of materials, the reading passage states that imposing high taxes on cigarette and unhealthy foods has several benefits for society. However, the lecturer argues that there are some challenges and those benefits are not necessarily true. She provides some evidence to refute them all.
First of all, the author of the passage claims that if people pay more for unhealthy products, it discourage them to consume more. In contrast, the professor contends that this can cause negative effect because that poor people buy cheaper and even more harmful cigarettes instead of high quality types. If they continue to use those low-quality products they would not experience any benefit. So, in most cases, the disadvantages is more than advantages.
Furthermore, it is mentioned in the article that this kind of taxes are financially fair and people accept the consequences of their behavior. On the contrary, the lecturer argues that it might seem fair at the first place to pay for the future medical cost, but the burden is much higher for low income people than high income which is not fair. Hence, populations with lower salaries suffer more after taxes.
Finally, the passage asserts that it is a good source of revenue for the government to use it for public welfare. Conversely, the professor claims that if government become dependent on it, it is nearly impossible to pass laws to eliminate harmful products. For example, it will not ban smoking cigarette in all private and public areas because it does not want to lose the money. In fact, the deleterious behaviors not only will not get eliminated, but also will become worse.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 99, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'discourages'?
Suggestion: discourages
...ple pay more for unhealthy products, it discourage them to consume more. In contrast, the ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 305, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...garettes instead of high quality types. If they continue to use those low-quality ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, for example, in contrast, in fact, kind of, first of all, in most cases, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1380.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 274.0 270.72406181 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03649635036 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5871562337 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.580291970803 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 440.1 419.366225166 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3765915359 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.5714285714 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5714285714 21.698381199 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.7142857143 7.06452816374 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185635088815 0.272083759551 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0541763351544 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0743943993372 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108755623612 0.162205337803 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0466739767296 0.0443174109184 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.