Some governments believe it is necessary to impose a higher tax on junk food because an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems as a result of eating too much of this type of food. What do you think about this?
As consumption of sugar, fat and salt increases, rates of related illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, and stroke are also on the rise. In order to tackle this problem, some argue that the government should levy a tariff on junk food. This essay will discuss why I firmly believe that a higher rate of tax should be paid by companies that provide the public with fast, but unhealthy food.
Firstly raising taxes means the government has more to spend on public services like healthcare and education. This has been in the case with taxes from alcohol and tobacco products in many countries. In the UK, for example, tax from the cigarettes is used to treat patients with smoking-related diseases such as lung cancer, as well as to fund advertising campaigns to deter smokers. Tax from fast food could be used by the government in the same way both to supplement healthcare and to discourage consumption.
Furthermore, on a practical level, this initiative would reduce the consumption of junk food and increase that of healthy products. This is simply because increasing taxes would raise prices. If, for instance, a big mac cost 10 dollars rather than 3 dollars, few people would see it as an attractive option. Junk food would soon become a luxury item only to be consumed occasionally and therefore less harmful to the health of the general public.
In conclusion, poor food choices are having a detrimental impact on public health. An increase in the tax on junk food is a good idea not only because of the good precedent set by alcohol and tobacco, but also the fact that it would reduce the amount of fast food that most people can afford to buy.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 432, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...efore less harmful to the health of the general public. In conclusion, poor food choices ar...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, so, therefore, well, as to, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, as well as, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 41.998997996 98% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 8.3376753507 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1376.0 1615.20841683 85% => OK
No of words: 288.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77777777778 5.12529762239 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11953428781 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63819206809 2.80592935109 94% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 176.041082164 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.579861111111 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 420.3 506.74238477 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.5981898334 49.4020404114 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.846153846 106.682146367 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1538461538 20.7667163134 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.5384615385 7.06120827912 163% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.323356939914 0.244688304435 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115259544572 0.084324248473 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0688307947541 0.0667982634062 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190000820824 0.151304729494 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0267235516918 0.056905535591 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.0946893788 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 50.2224549098 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.3001002004 95% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.4159519038 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.58950901804 100% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 78.4519038076 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 9.78957915832 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.