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.
Whether improving high taxes on unhealthy food and cigarettes has benefits, is the focus of both the writer and the professor. In the writing, three benefits, including discouraging the public from unhealthy behaviors, making people financially fair, and increasing the government's revenues, have been elaborated. The professor, however, claims that these benefits are not convincing.
As opposed to the writer's idea that high taxes can keep people from unhealthy behaviors, the professor states that this way will hurt people's health. She advances the theory by saying that the higher the taxes are, the cheaper people will buy cigarettes, which will be more harmful to themselves and others; even when the unhealthy food is more expensive, it would still have many people buying unhealthy food, which could cost them much more money, so they would have less money to buy healthy food, which could hurt their physical health.
The professor continues to discredit the writing's assertion that high taxes can boost financially fair, by examining the fact that it would promote the difference in people's financial conditions. In detail, she points out that the high taxes affect both high-income people and low-income people, but it doesn't have the same influence on two kinds of people, which can reduce financially fair.
It is the professor's third argument that the revenues caused by high taxes would be more harmful to people, which contradicts the view of the writer that high taxes can increase the government's revenues and benefit people's health. To explore it further, the professor contends that if the government receives numerous revenues, it will not want to lose so much money, so it wouldn't limit the public unhealthy behaviors, like not banning public smoking and stuff like that.
An apparent divide exists between the writer and the professor on the benefits of imposing high taxes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...re not convincing. As opposed to the writers idea that high taxes can keep people fr...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 42, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writings'' or 'writing's'?
Suggestion: writings'; writing's
...he professor continues to discredit the writings assertion that high taxes can boost fin...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 304, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...me people and low-income people, but it doesnt have the same influence on two kinds of...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 375, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...l not want to lose so much money, so it wouldnt limit the public unhealthy behaviors, l...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, still, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1607.0 1373.03311258 117% => OK
No of words: 304.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28618421053 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57161745331 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509868421053 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 467.1 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => 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: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 84.9567537045 49.2860985944 172% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.7 110.228320801 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.4 21.698381199 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4 7.06452816374 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
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: 0.253565966643 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111854552731 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0846028390783 0.0662205650399 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142290370962 0.162205337803 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399576741747 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.7 13.3589403974 140% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 53.8541721854 92% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 11.0289183223 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.