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 lecture and the article are both about tax of the unhealthy behaviors. Conversely, The professor in the lecture challenges the argument made by the author.
First, the lecturer cast doubt on the reading that the tax which is posed on the cigarette is not necessarily lead to healthier life for them since those people tending to smoke or eat unhealthy food might turn to the cheaper or low quality cigarette, so is food. This might be more harmful to them and not able to make them live healthier. Furthermore, she also says that the more expensive food, because of the tax, might not be effective to someone who will keep buying that. Instead, they will lessen their money on the health food to pay the more expensive one.
Second, the professor states since government doesn't take the income level into consideration, some people will consider it not fair. The professor takes a example that there are a group of people who in high income level and get addicted to cigarette. Compared to those who only have low income, those people actually should be posed higher tax because they consume more harmful items. As for unhealthy food, it is the same that income level should be included to the policy.
Last, professor believes that tax on unhealthy items does not really benefit everyone, differing from the statement of the passage.. She mentions that the amount of the tax on the unhealthy items is at the level of million dollars. The reason why government doesn't ban or still allow people to smoke or eat unhealthy food is since they can receive a host of income. That is, the government doesn't want to lose the income so they won't really forbid this kind of behaviors.
In conclusion, the professor clearly identifies the weaknesses in the reading passage via three opposite points of view, including that tax is not necessarily lead to decrease in use of unhealthy items, that income level should be taken into consideration, and that government poses tax, instead of banning, so that they can receive a quite big income. Those are the reasons why professor disagree with the idea in the reading material.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 47, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
..., the professor states since government doesnt take the income level into consideratio...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 129, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'fairs'?
Suggestion: fairs
...ation, some people will consider it not fair. The professor takes a example that the...
^^^^
Line 5, column 155, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...nsider it not fair. The professor takes a example that there are a group of peopl...
^
Line 5, column 182, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'groups'?
Suggestion: groups
...fessor takes a example that there are a group of people who in high income level and ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 131, Rule ID: DOUBLE_PUNCTUATION
Message: Two consecutive dots
Suggestion: .
...fering from the statement of the passage.. She mentions that the amount of the tax...
^^
Line 7, column 259, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...lion dollars. The reason why government doesnt ban or still allow people to smoke or e...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 391, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...host of income. That is, the government doesnt want to lose the income so they wont re...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, conversely, first, furthermore, if, really, second, so, still, as for, in conclusion, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 30.3222958057 152% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1765.0 1373.03311258 129% => OK
No of words: 364.0 270.72406181 134% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8489010989 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.04702891845 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50118164322 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483516483516 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 553.5 419.366225166 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.9092038181 49.2860985944 146% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.3125 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 21.698381199 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.8125 7.06452816374 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 4.45695364238 269% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.244901440313 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0805465666968 0.0996497079465 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0601889238657 0.0662205650399 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133738686844 0.162205337803 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0321370792243 0.0443174109184 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.55 8.42419426049 90% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.