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 unhealthy behaviors. Whilst the author claims that the higher taxes benefits people in three possible ways, the lecturer contradicts his arguments respectively.
First, the writer states that high taxes encourages people to quit unhealthy behaviors, including smoking and eating unhealthy food. In contrast, the speaker disagrees this viewpoint. She argues that with the high taxes, people will turn to cheaper cigarettes with lower qualities which are more harmful. Furthermore, she adds that with higher taxes people will spend more money on unhealthy food, consequently they have less money left for healthy food.
Second, according to the reading passage, high taxes are more financially fair. On the other hand, the professor is doubtful that this is inaccurate. She points out that lower income people who engage in unhealthy behavior suffer more from the high taxes than those with higher incomes.
Last but not least, the author posits that high taxes increases revenue for the government. However, the lecturer believes that there are flaws in this argument. She asserts that this considerable revenue will cause the government rely on it and do not want to loose it. Consequently, the government would not regulate a strict low to ban the smoking because the government require this income.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 262, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[3]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
...overnment rely on it and do not want to loose it. Consequently, the government would ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, furthermore, however, second, so, 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: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1166.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 217.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3732718894 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.8380880478 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5859064209 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.585253456221 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 343.8 419.366225166 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.3432044974 49.2860985944 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.6923076923 110.228320801 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6923076923 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.92307692308 7.06452816374 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.272232134263 0.272083759551 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0946983356681 0.0996497079465 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0775855129167 0.0662205650399 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164468984683 0.162205337803 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0556126271501 0.0443174109184 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.57 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 55.0 63.6247240618 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.