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 and lecture are about the impacts of imposing taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy foods. The author of the reading passage feels that there would be innocuous effects and provides three reasons for support. However, the reading challenged each of the authors' reasons.
To begin with, the reading says that, due to the high taxes on these kinds of food, people would deviate from them, and finally purchased in a lower amount. It also mentions that congruent taxes on non-hygienic food also improves health problems. However, the speaker refutes by saying that when there would be high taxes on cigarettes, people start to buy low-quality, which finally has negative consequences on the health of humans and the same condition would occur in an unhealthy type of foods.
Secondly, the reading posits that increasing taxes would create an equilibrium level in the financial condition. Finally, there would be transferring some of the burden from all of the society to those who were involved in wrong activities. The professor opposes it by saying that this type of condition would be more burden to the lower status family as compared to the high.
Finally, the reading claims that due to the high tax, it would raise the revenue of the government. It also noted that these types of taxes can compensate on the different developmental works viz; public welfare building and parks; etc. On the contrary, the professor opposes it by saying that due to high taxes, the government would be dispensable upon public, and does not wished to loose all of these.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 150, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...n. Finally, there would be transferring some of the burden from all of the society to those...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 174, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...be transferring some of the burden from all of the society to those who were involved in w...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 376, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'wish'
Suggestion: wish
...e dispensable upon public, and does not wished to loose all of these.
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 386, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[3]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
...ble upon public, and does not wished to loose all of these.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, second, secondly, so, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 10.4613686534 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 30.3222958057 132% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1310.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 262.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02323427807 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56210090575 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 140.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534351145038 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 395.1 419.366225166 94% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2844466317 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.166666667 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8333333333 21.698381199 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.66666666667 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
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: 0.236834924519 0.272083759551 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0935974108616 0.0996497079465 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0799268476957 0.0662205650399 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144657730874 0.162205337803 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0436487407801 0.0443174109184 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 13.3589403974 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21 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.