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 article proposes that taxing the unhealthy food likle cigarette may have three social benefits for people. However, the professor asserts that all the reasons can be challenged and repudiates all those justifications one by one.
First, the professor avers that taxing unhealthy foods not necessarily lead to changing eating habit of people to a more healthier diet. She believes that in reality what happened for cigartte, many smokers shift their prefernce to cheaper cigarette which they have lower quality and more hazard for smokers. She insists that in the case of junk food, it may happen that people spend their money to buy those expensive unhealthy food which cause they won't have enough money to buy nutritious food. This course of action will pose more health risk for people in society. Then, she directly rebuts this idea that exposing more tax on unhealthy food will end up changing people unhealthy eating habit to a better one.
Second, the lecturer posits that some people look at this tax and logic behind that from differnt way. From those people aspect of view, this tax is not based on people income, therefore, it is not fair at all. She adds that low-income people will pay more percent of their income for this tax rather than high-income people. She points out this tax will bring more financial difficulty for low-income people. As we see, with this reasoning, the speaker refutes the writer's idea flatly that this extra-tax on unhealthy food is fair which cover the medical costs that those people produce.
Third, the lecturer repudiates this idea that governments will make more wellfare facilities with this revenue. She asserts that authorities will depend on this extra income and they intentionally won't to lose that. Therefore, governments will not pass the law to decrease smoking or changing people eating habit from junk food to healthy one. There will not be a radical change regarding to this principle that governments will will not reinforce regulation to change smokers or people who involve with these unhealthy behaviors. She directly opposes the writer's idea that this extra income for government will led to more community facilities like parks and stadiums.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... all those justifications one by one. First, the professor avers that taxing u...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 124, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'healthier' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: healthier
...to changing eating habit of people to a more healthier diet. She believes that in reality what...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...healthy eating habit to a better one. Second, the lecturer posits that some pe...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 473, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...this reasoning, the speaker refutes the writers idea flatly that this extra-tax on unhe...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ical costs that those people produce. Third, the lecturer repudiates this idea...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 319, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... smoking or changing people eating habit from junk food to healthy one. There wil...
^^
Line 4, column 432, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: will
...ding to this principle that governments will will not reinforce regulation to change smok...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 564, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...thy behaviors. She directly opposes the writers idea that this extra income for governm...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 620, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'lead'
Suggestion: lead
...t this extra income for government will led to more community facilities like parks...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, so, then, therefore, third, well
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: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 12.0772626932 174% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 22.412803532 228% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1850.0 1373.03311258 135% => OK
No of words: 363.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09641873278 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42273619624 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498622589532 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 564.3 419.366225166 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 3.25607064018 338% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.9495860721 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.823529412 110.228320801 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3529411765 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 7.06452816374 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 4.19205298013 215% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 4.45695364238 269% => 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: 0.205039439723 0.272083759551 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0800258072647 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0667519410757 0.0662205650399 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145414979423 0.162205337803 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0654991652911 0.0443174109184 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 63.6247240618 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.