AIDS is a disease that has killed millions of people all over the world. Most of the cases of AIDS in the world are in poorer countries where the people can’t afford to buy the drugs that would help keep them alive and healthy. Many AIDS Advocacy Groups (AAGs) are trying to help the people in these developing countries get the health care they need to fight AIDS. AAGs are doing this in several ways.
First of all, they argue that the profits of these companies are too high and such high pricing is immoral in the face of such a devastating disease. AAGs believe that major drug companies should sell their AIDS medicines at a much lower cost so that AIDS patients who have very little money would not have to choose between buying their food or their medication.
Second, AAGs are trying to get governments to pay for AIDS drugs instead of individual people. In general, when buying in large quantities, the price goes down. Therefore, if a government bought enough medication for all the AIDS patients in its country, then the price per bottle of medication would be much lower than the price individuals currently pay when buying medication on their own.
Third, AAGs are beginning to encourage poor countries to make their own cheap versions of AIDS drugs, even though it is illegal to do so. If the drugs were made in the same country, this would not only reduce shipping costs, but it would also give many people jobs in these poorer countries.
The text and the lecturer talk about the AIDS Advocacy Group (AAS) suggestions about increasing availability of the AIDS drug at a poor country. The text states that three ways to enabling the patient with cheap drugs are through decreasing the pharmaceutical company profit, make the government buy the drugs in bulk and encourage the country to recreate the drugs in their homeland. However, the lecturer casts doubt to the suggestions because several reasons I would like to elaborate more in the next paragraph.
Firstly, the cut of profit in the drug company is ineluctable. The lecturer says that the profit is very fundamental in a business because it is important for the survival of the company. Although the text believes it is unethical to take advantages from under resource people, the profit itself will benefit the population in the long term. The lecture points out that the profit will bring a new investment, hence more income. Consequently, more funds mean more drugs.
Secondly, the low-income country unable to provide the drugs for their people because of insufficient funding. In fact, the poor country has limited expenditure for health. Although the text argues that buy the drugs in large quantities will lower the drug price, the country simply has no power to do so.
Lastly, the encouragement from the AAS to recreate the cheaper version of the drug is considered illegal activity. Not only it violates the patent of the drugs it also hinders the quality of the drugs. Regardless, the text argues that the local product will more affordable since there is no shipping cost and it provides more job opportunity for the country, still, it probably end up bad since the cheaper price happens because of a lower quality of material and lack of quality control. Therefore, this drug can be defective or even worse, dangerous.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 380, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'ends'?
Suggestion: ends
...ity for the country, still, it probably end up bad since the cheaper price happens ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, firstly, hence, however, lastly, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, as to, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1551.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03571428571 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68532010911 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538961038961 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 480.6 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.6044374121 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.4 110.228320801 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5333333333 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.133987185157 0.272083759551 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0433319503068 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483963087994 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0834033152062 0.162205337803 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0592155978982 0.0443174109184 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.2367328918 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => 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.