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 reading and the lecture are talking about problems in providing HIV drug for a low-income country. The passage believes that the AIDS drugs should affordable, so the price should be cheaper. Furthermore, the AIDS Advocacy Group (AAG) advocates the pharmaceutical company and government to play a major part in this problem. The lecturer casts doubt on the suggestion made in the article. He thinks that the advice is shortsighted and not feasible to apply.
First, AAG suggests the drug company cut their profit so the drugs price is decreased. The article mentions that the business owner should not utilize the poor people because it is unethical. However, the point is challenged by the lecturer. He says that it is fundamental for every business to have huge profit for the company survival. Without the profit, there will be no investor hence no budget to recreate a new drug.
Secondly, the author contends that the government should pay the drugs. If the government buy the drugs in large quantities, the price will decrease hence the patient can get the drugs. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He stated that the government of poor country most likely unable to fund the huge expenses since the government also has very limited expenditure. She elaborates on this by mentioning that it is an economic basic that poor country has a poor government.
Finally, the organization encourages the poor resource country to create a cheaper version of the drugs. The article establishes that without shipping cost the fee to produce the drug will decrease. Moreover, the increasing job opportunities will facilitate the people to buying the drugs. The lecturer, on the other hand, posits that this idea is unethical because of the drug will consider the violation to the drug copyright. Additionally, the lower price may be feasible because of low-quality control and use of a cheap material. Consequently, the drug not only less effective but also can harm the patient.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 73, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (HIV) must be used with a third-person verb: 'drugs'.
Suggestion: drugs
...talking about problems in providing HIV drug for a low-income country. The passage b...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, talking about, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 5.01324503311 199% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1660.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 325.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10769230769 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78548052859 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 145.348785872 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532307692308 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 511.2 419.366225166 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.23620309051 182% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 26.7711388916 49.2860985944 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 79.0476190476 110.228320801 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4761904762 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.80952380952 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 4.45695364238 292% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.129660253589 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0347252664079 0.0996497079465 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.034653223011 0.0662205650399 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0774230096711 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0258936774752 0.0443174109184 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 13.3589403974 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.06 12.2367328918 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.