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 the reading and lecture discuss paying high taxes on the purchase of cigarettes and unhealthy foods. In this regard, the passage
describes three advantages of the policy; however, the lecturer discredits them by mentioning three challenges.
First of all, the text says taxes prevent people from smoking and eating unhealthy foods; nonetheless, the speaker refutes it because
this policy not only encourages people to buy low-quality cigarettes and/or foods but makes the problem more severe instead of
solving it. As a result, the paying high taxes policy is not effective to discourage people in order to stop using unhealthy foods and
smoking cigarettes.
Second, the passage claims that the policy is fair because people who get sick due to their mistakes, must accept the consequences of
their lifestyle. Nonetheless, the speaker rejects the "fair" definition by the author and discuss it. Some people do not think the policy
is fair because it is not based on individuals' income; so, it affects low-income people more than high-income ones.
Finally, the reading asserts that the rule increases the government budget; therefore, the government can use this revenue to enhance
public welfare. Conversely, the speaker believes that this condition makes the government more dependent on taxes. As a result, they
do not endeavor to ban smoking and eating unhealthy foods. For example, the government does not try to block smoking in outdoor
areas such as parks or any other private/ public outdoors because it does not want to miss the taxes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 40, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'taxes'' or 'tax's'?
Suggestion: taxes'; tax's
... solving it As a result the paying high taxes policy is not effective to discourage p...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 36, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'individuals'' or 'individual's'?
Suggestion: individuals'; individual's
...icy is fair because it is not based on individuals income so it affects lowincome people m...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, finally, first, however, if, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, for example, such as, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1294.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 249.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19678714859 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97237131171 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56677094649 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.534136546185 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 405.0 419.366225166 97% => 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: 0.0 8.23620309051 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 13.0662251656 8% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 249.0 21.2450331126 1172% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 49.2860985944 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1294.0 110.228320801 1174% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 249.0 21.698381199 1148% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 129.0 7.06452816374 1826% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 12.0 4.09492273731 293% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.2887414938 0.272083759551 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.2887414938 0.0996497079465 290% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101893347326 0.162205337803 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103016141159 0.0443174109184 232% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 127.6 13.3589403974 955% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -181.26 53.8541721854 -337% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 5.55761589404 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 100.4 11.0289183223 910% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 14.36 12.2367328918 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 19.92 8.42419426049 236% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 57.0 10.7273730684 531% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 101.6 10.498013245 968% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 57.0 11.2008830022 509% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.