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 passage and the lecturer discuss the merits and demerits of high taxes which exist on cigarettes and unhealthy foods. While the reading passage brings three advantages of the high taxes, the lecturer casts doubt on them and providing some reasons to refute them.
First, the writer argues that by high taxing, people dicourage to smoke regularly or eat unhealthy food frequently. On the other hand, the professor asserts that smokers leed to use cheaper cigarettes with lower quality instead of leave smoking. Also, people eat unhealthy food yet, however they would be expensive, and subsequently they expend less money of their income to eat healthy food. So this method can't help to have healthier society.
Second, the author declares that both the smokers and nonsmokers people, or the people with healthy diet and people without it, soppurt by the government equally in the medical costs, and it's unfair. Thus there should be taxes for cigarettes and unhealthy food. Conversly, the lecturer states that by exictence of these taxes, people with smaller incomes spend as money as wealthy people for cigarettes. Thus there is no fair in the society yet.
Finally, the author says that with these taxes, government can invest more in medical assistance and other relevant projects. In contrast, the professor believes that with these taxes, the government would be happy of unhealthy behaviours of people. So government would be propbably release some legislation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 409, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ome to eat healthy food. So this method cant help to have healthier society. Seco...
^^^^
Line 5, column 201, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...y in the medical costs, and its unfair. Thus there should be taxes for cigarettes an...
^^^^
Line 5, column 405, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...money as wealthy people for cigarettes. Thus there is no fair in the society yet. ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, second, so, thus, while, in contrast, 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: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 12.0772626932 58% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 22.412803532 76% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1254.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 238.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26890756303 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.92775363542 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47223120355 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 134.0 145.348785872 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.563025210084 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 374.4 419.366225166 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.662574513 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.4615384615 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3076923077 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61538461538 7.06452816374 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252512326169 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0966971857049 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11740652763 0.0662205650399 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142546967619 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0457205311969 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => 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: 13.29 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.