Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes; similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods. The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of social benefits.
First of all, the taxes discourage people from indulging in unhealthy behaviors. Raising taxes on cigarettes, for instance, leads people to buy fewer of them. Smoking has declined as taxes on tobacco have risen, showing that these taxes do work to make society healthier. It can be expected that imposing similar taxes on unhealthy food and beverages would help reduce obesity rates.
Second, taxes of this kind are financially fair. When people get sick as a result of their smoking or eating unhealthy foods, they create medical costs. It is unfair that everyone in the society, including nonsmokers and people who follow a healthy diet, should contribute equally to covering these costs. Taxing people who engage in unhealthy behaviors creates extra income that can be used to cover the medical costs. In this way, some of the financial burden is shifted from all of society to just those who choose to participate in the unhealthy activities.
Finally, the high rate of taxation on cigarettes significantly increases revenue for the government. In addition to using this tax revenue on medical assistance, governments often use the revenue for other projects that benefit public welfare, such as building stadiums or creating public parks. Even basic government-supported services like public education benefit from these taxes. Thus, the taxes on cigarettes, and the proposed taxes on unhealthy foods, benefit everyone.
The reading passage states that imposing high taxes on unhealthy food can have some benefits as it had on smoking cigarettes. However, the professor in the lecture casts doubt on the ideas presented by the reading passage and finds them challenging.
First, considering the reading passage imposing taxes on cigarettes caused a reduction in smoking rate because people could afford fewer cigarettes so the same can happen for unhealthy food products. In contrast, the professor in the lecture contradicts the idea and further explains that imposing taxes cause many people to use products with lower quality and higher hazard to their health. The same can happen for unhealthy products in the way that they still buy unhealthy food but they can not afford healthy food as before. Thus, the risks for their health will increase.
Second, the reading claims that paying high taxes for unhealthy behaviors is fair because people with these behaviors will require more medical services so, they should pay more for them. On the contrary, the professor in the lecture refutes the idea presented in the lecture and makes the point that people have different opinions about fairness. From some people's perspective, these extra taxes are unfair since they cause more burden for people with lower incomes.
Third, the author in the reading passage puts forward the idea that governments can plan the revenue coming from these taxes to be used on public welfare or education, additional to medical services. On the other hand, the speaker in the lecture contradicts the idea and adds that this extra revenue will make the government dependant on it. Hence, they may hesitate on making new decisions about preventing people from doing these unhealthy behaviors. For example, they may overthink about forbidding smoking in public places since they do not want to lose their income.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 359, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...rent opinions about fairness. From some peoples perspective, these extra taxes are unfa...
^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 326, Rule ID: DEPENDENT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'dependent' on?
Suggestion: dependent
... extra revenue will make the government dependant on it. Hence, they may hesitate on maki...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, still, third, thus, for example, in contrast, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1590.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 304.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23026315789 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40128649946 2.5805825403 93% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506578947368 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 479.7 419.366225166 114% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1070768062 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.307692308 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3846153846 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.92307692308 7.06452816374 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.263279167359 0.272083759551 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0951413262521 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0801281847382 0.0662205650399 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162933868564 0.162205337803 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0613698689156 0.0443174109184 138% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 13.3589403974 112% => 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: 13.35 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => 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.