阅读材料
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 and the lecture are both related to whether high tax should be imposed on cigarettes and other unhealthy food. While in the reading, the author approves this idea by mentioning three benefits of it, the lecturer, on the other hand, considers the points in the reading challenging.
To begin with, the author contends that high taxes will cut down people's indulgence on cigarettes and the unhealthy food, which helps the whole society healthier. However, the lecturer does not believe that there are definite connection between the two. Moreover, she argues that some smokers will then turn to cheap, low-quality cigarette, which may contain more harmful substances. Also, making the unhealthy food more expensive will not decrease people's willing to buy them, yet cutting down their budget on healthier food.
Next, the author claims that higher tax is financially fair since these group of people may cause medical burden in the future. On the contrary, the lecturer asks for another way of seeing "fairness". If the price of the cigarette becomes higher, this may result in heavier burden on people who has less income, compared to richer people. The same can be applied to the unhealthy food situation. Thus, the lecturer disagrees with the fairness the author mentions.
Finally, as the reading suggests that the government will consequently gain revenue from the tax, the society benefits from public welfare, like building stadiums or creating public park. However, the lecturer casts doubts on the downside of the assisting money for government. She considers that the society may thus heavily rely on the revenue, giving up on making powerful laws or other adoptions. It may even limit the government's decision as they will always concern if they will lose the income from it. In this regard, the lecturer does not believe the benefits the society will gain from the revenue.
Obviously, there is a huge division between the author's opinion and the lecturer's.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 49, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...y, there is a huge division between the authors opinion and the lecturers.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, while, on the contrary, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 323.0 270.72406181 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22291021672 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60880328048 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582043343653 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 503.1 419.366225166 120% => 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: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.7355724995 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2352941176 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.58823529412 7.06452816374 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.218064234707 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0686078518062 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0998126488306 0.0662205650399 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119369716053 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0948553252131 0.0443174109184 214% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 63.6247240618 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.