Directions: You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well your response presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage. Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.
Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they challenge the specific points made in the reading passage.
In the article, the author suggests that the taxes of cigarettes and other unhealthy products are beneficial in several aspects, which are refuted by the professor who acclaims that all of those advantages can be challenged.
First, the writer insists taxes can prevent people of buying the cigarette therefore it can reduce people's unhealthy behaviors. However, the lecture indicates that it might not prevent people from cigarette. For one thing, people would buy much cheaper and less healthy cigarette containing more toxic chemicals. For another thing, people could still buy cigarette regardless of the tax, and thus their money used for buying healthy foods could decrease.
Moreover, the artcle suggests that it is more fair in economy for the public because the people who do not smoke have to afford the negative effect caused by cigarette-addicted people. In the contrast, the speaker argues that there could be another kind of unfair. If the government charge different group of people with the same cigarette tax, then it brings much more financial burden to the low-income group rather than the high-income group. Therefore, the income of different people should be taken into account.
Finally, the author claims that the taxes received by government could increase the budget of the public medical insurance and bring benefit to the public welfare. Nevertheless, the professor refutes this perspective by indicating the fact that this huge amount of money, which could be millions of dollar a year, could result in the dependence of the government to cigarette taxes. In this sense, the government would not be interested to promote the policy to prevent people from those unhealthy products such as the ban of cigarettes in the public position.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, then, therefore, thus, another thing, kind of, such as, for another thing, for one thing
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1489.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28014184397 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66782879838 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535460992908 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 455.4 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.533902002 49.2860985944 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.083333333 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.6666666667 7.06452816374 179% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.0270499721891 0.272083759551 10% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0133457293438 0.0996497079465 13% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0104061254579 0.0662205650399 16% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0178432556701 0.162205337803 11% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00400498848011 0.0443174109184 9% => 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: 15.2 13.3589403974 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => 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?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.