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.
In the passage, the author mentioned 3 benefits coming from posing high taxes on cigarettes and unhealthy food. However, in the lecture, the professor cast doubts on them.
Firstly, the passage argues that heavy taxes on unhealthy behavior would discourage people from doing them as people will buy fewer of them considering the high taxes. Yet, the professor disproves it by pointing out that when taxes are high, people would buy cheaper cigarettes which have a lower quality and contain more harmful components. Also, people living unhealthy lives will turn to junk food because they can not afford the healthy food after paying the taxes. Both of these will even raise the healthy risk.
Secondly, the author in the passage considers the taxes on unhealthy stuff financial fair, as they create extra income. And this income can be used to cover the medical costs caused by the unhealthy stuffs, which release the burden of people who live a healthy life. However, the professor consider the taxes unfair instead, as both people whose income is high or low need to pay for the tax. The taxes will not strongly effect people with high income, but put more heavy burden on low income people, which leads to unfair.
Lastly, according to the passage, the increased revenue for the administration will bring more social benefits. However, the professor also proves its downsides as governments would rely on such a high income which may be millions of dollars. So the authority may not push laws and regulations to eliminate the unhealthy stuff. For example, smoking in public may not be banned as the government does not want to lose the high income created by people smoking.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 422, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[7]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
...or the tax. The taxes will not strongly effect people with high income, but put more h...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, for example
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: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1404.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 282.0 270.72406181 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97872340426 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09790868904 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37514543327 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556737588652 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 426.6 419.366225166 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.4024797398 49.2860985944 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.285714286 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1428571429 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.14285714286 7.06452816374 87% => 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: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296830475557 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106767817068 0.0996497079465 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0870806660164 0.0662205650399 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196164174655 0.162205337803 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0526131914091 0.0443174109184 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => 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.