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 and the lecture both deal with consequences of high taxes on behaviors. Whilst the author claims that the high taxes can benefits people in three possible ways, the lecturer contradicts his arguments respectively.
First, according to the reading passage, high taxes discourages people from indulging in unhealthy behaviors including smoking and eating unhealthy food. In contrast, the speaker argues that with the high taxes, people will turn to cheaper cigarettes with lower qualities which are more harmful. Similarly, people will spend more money on unhealthy food, as a result, they have less money left for healthy food.
Second, the writer states that high taxes on cigarettes and unhealthy food are more reasonable for people who are nonsmoker or who follow a healthy diet. As apposed to the author, the professor points out that it brings lower income people who engage in unhealthy behavior suffer more from the high taxes than higher income ones.
Last but not least, the author posits that high taxes can increase revenue for the government by providing more money on public services. As opposed to the writer, the lecturer asserts that if government relies on the taxes for revenue, it will prohibit the government enacting laws to ban smoke in public places.
As we can see, the author and lecturer hold very different views on high taxes on unhealthy behaviors.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 107, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...thy food are more reasonable for people who are nonsmoker or who follow a healthy diet....
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, similarly, so, in contrast, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 3.0 10.4613686534 29% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => 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: 1175.0 1373.03311258 86% => OK
No of words: 226.0 270.72406181 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19911504425 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.87727950738 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47936507097 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.548672566372 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 352.8 419.366225166 84% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => 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: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.3804510183 49.2860985944 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 117.5 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 21.698381199 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.3 7.06452816374 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.315282943161 0.272083759551 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141289528785 0.0996497079465 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566159814781 0.0662205650399 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184166877343 0.162205337803 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0422728439444 0.0443174109184 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 53.8541721854 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.2367328918 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 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.