The debate over public smoking has raised a number of public policy issues, most prominently in the areas of public health, economics, and personal rights. Few people dispute the health risks of cigarette smoking. Smokers assume risks every time they light up, just as people assume calculated health risks whenever they get into a car, eat fried food, or drink alcohol. Smokers choose to risk their health of their own free will.
Much has been made about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Policy makers have cited statistical dangers as a reason to proliferate smoking bans in public businesses -- particularly restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. However, the statistics produced are suspect, at best. In fact, a federal judge dismissed an Environmental Protection Agency claim that 3,000 people die of lung cancer annually due to secondhand smoke. Researchers have found that it takes at least 20 years for direct smokers to develop a cancerous malignancy. It would take longer than a lifetime to develop cancer from inhaling secondhand smoke.
Smoking bans also affect the freedoms and economic positions of business owners and their employees. Indeed, many restaurant and bar owners have had to shut down, unable to sustain revenue losses of twenty percent or more. Others have lost large sums of money on now useless ventilation systems. Employees of these establishments have experienced corresponding reductions in their tip income.
But the most disconcerting issue is the erosion of personal freedoms. America has always sought to protect the rights of minorities, which is what smokers are, making up just a quarter of the U.S. population. Smokers pay significantly higher taxes each year, yet have watched their rights disappear. The federal government collects over $7.5 billion in excise taxes annually from smokers, and individual states collect billions more. Yet even as these taxes increase, smokers' rights have declined. It makes one wonder which freedoms will vanish next.
Both the lecture and the article talk about the public smoking and, in particular, on how it should be limited or authorized. However, if on one side the speaker is strongly convinced that some limitation should be imposed to smokers, on the other side the writer defends their rights and their freedom.
First, they discuss about benefits and drawback of smoking bans in public places such as restaurants and bars. In the reading this limitations are seen as a loss not only of the freedom of people who smoke, but also of the business of these activity. As a matter of fact, some data are reported about many places that, after having imposed these restrictions were forced to close due to the weak affluence of clients. On the other side, the speaking strongly supports these policy since it prevents people who are not smokers from the dust. Moreover, this resctriction is also seen by the speaker as an help for smokers who are trying to quit.
In addition, another controversial aspect presented is how harmful second hand smoke actually is. The writer refers that it is strongly unusual for non smoker to die of lung cancer, and that, for this reason, preventing people from the smoke is not a real problem. By contrast, the lecturer believes that even if the death rate is very low, passive smoke could anyway bring to other medical problems such as heart disease. Thus, smokers should respect other people and should avoid lighting a sigarette while they are close to others.
In conclusion, even if the themes analyzed are completely the same, the approaches of the two voices are totally different. While the writer would like to expand the rights of smokers, the speaker substain the freedom of the other part of the population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 127, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...as restaurants and bars. In the reading this limitations are seen as a loss not only...
^^^^
Line 3, column 236, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this activity' or 'these activities'?
Suggestion: this activity; these activities
... who smoke, but also of the business of these activity. As a matter of fact, some data are rep...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 469, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this policy' or 'these policies'?
Suggestion: this policy; these policies
...er side, the speaking strongly supports these policy since it prevents people who are not sm...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 601, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...triction is also seen by the speaker as an help for smokers who are trying to quit...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, anyway, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, thus, while, in addition, in conclusion, in particular, such as, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 10.4613686534 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1451.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 299.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85284280936 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44642371273 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 145.348785872 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548494983278 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 444.6 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.23620309051 61% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.25165562914 399% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 2.5761589404 349% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.2506956961 49.2860985944 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 111.615384615 110.228320801 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 21.698381199 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.9230769231 7.06452816374 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146853664383 0.272083759551 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528737641425 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0424394616965 0.0662205650399 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0792509457419 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0394340275234 0.0443174109184 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.