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.
The lecture and the article discuss whether smoking in public places should be limited or allowed. The two views expressed are at odds. While the speaker is strongly convinced that some limitations should be imposed to smokers, the writer defends their rights and their freedom.
First, they discuss benefits and drawbacks of smoking bans in public places. In the reading, limitations are disliked because they penalize not only the smokers, but also the business of restaurants and bars which impose them. On the other side, the speaking strongly supports this strict policy beacuse it prevents people who are not smokers from the polluted air and it could help individuals who are trying to stop.
Next, they analyze the effects that secondhand smoke could have on other people. The writer refers that it is strongly unusual for not smoker to die of lung cancer, and that, for this reason, preventing people from the smoke is not strictly necessary. Conversely, the lecturer believes that even if the death rate for passive smoke is very low, it could anyway bring to other medical problems such as heart diseases. Thus, smokers should respect other people and should not light cigarettes near to others.
In conclusion, even if the themes analyzed are completely the same, the approaches of the two voices are completely different. While the writer would like to expand the rights of smokers, the speaker is deeply concerned with protecting the health and the wellness of the other part of population.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, but, conversely, first, if, second, so, thus, well, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 1.0 5.01324503311 20% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1266.0 1373.03311258 92% => OK
No of words: 248.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10483870968 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96837696647 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42899959281 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.572580645161 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 376.2 419.366225166 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.7052756498 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.5 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6666666667 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.91666666667 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.171850822198 0.272083759551 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0615286576627 0.0996497079465 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0521910656952 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0924360892773 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0330835815172 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.