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 so

Essay topics:

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.

Both reading passage and the lecture mainly discuss about the taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy foods. The passage states three social benefits for imposing higher taxes. However, the professor in the lecture refutes them by providing three detail explanations.

To begin with, the passage describes that the taxes can prevent people from unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking or eating junk foods. If the taxes are higher, then the citizens would lower their desire of smoking or eating unhealthy food, which can improve their health. Nevertheless, the professor contends that the higher taxes would cause people to buy low quality cigarettes, which are much more harmful than the usual cigarettes. Same as the phenomenon of taxes on unhealthy food. People would buy junk foods as their first priority, so there would be no money left for them to buy health food.

Second, the passage mentions it is financially fair to impose taxed on these unhealthy products, because the unhealthy products would increase the cost from society. However, the professor disagrees with the fairness mentioned above. She argues that it is unfair for people with different income to have the same taxed on unhealthy behaviors. The rich feel nothing about the penalty of smoking or eating unhealthy food. On the other hand, it would influence relatively higher to the people with lower income.

Third, the writer encourage the high rate of tax because it can increase the government income, while the professor in the lecture disagrees with the tax policy. The professor thinks the government depends on the taxes and does not actively solve the initial problems.

To sum up, the professor refutes the reading passage by giving three arguments, and she does not imposing higher tax can benefit everyone.

Average: 6.8 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 98, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'impose'
Suggestion: impose
...iving three arguments, and she does not imposing higher tax can benefit everyone.

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, then, third, while, such as, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 10.4613686534 48% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 12.0772626932 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 30.3222958057 106% => 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: 1515.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 289.0 270.72406181 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24221453287 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12310562562 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45276737896 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 145.348785872 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508650519031 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.2098618998 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.6875 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0625 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
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: 0.304372492164 0.272083759551 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108680925448 0.0996497079465 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770266438685 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160693214558 0.162205337803 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0443009009754 0.0443174109184 100% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?


Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.