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 so

Essay topics:

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 this set of material, both the article and the professor are discussing the implementation of unhealthy food tax. The article proposes three benefits that may be brought by the food tax, but the professor refutes all of them with following theories:
First and foremost, the article states that by the execution of food tax, people who were originally indulging themselves in unhealthy foods may have less incentive due to the rise of their prices, as smoking declines when tax implemented on cigarettes. But the professor disputes it by showing the fact that the rise of unhealthy foods' prices will only leads to the poor buying cheaper and unhealthier foods, which is similar with the implementation of cigarettes tax. What's worse is, people who used to buy unhealthy foods will have less money to spend on healthy foods, and will eventually get ill.
Secondly, by stating fairness can be justified only when those people who get sick by smoking or unhealthy foods contribute more taxes, the article claims that the implementation can bring justice to everyone. However, the professor contradicts it with the unfairness between the wealthy people and the impoverished. Paying taxes may seem easy for the rich, but it becomes a burden when paid by the poor. Therefore, the implementation of unhealthy food tax will not justify fairness but increase the gap between wealthy people and poor people.
Last but not least, the article deduces the food tax can bring benefit to everyone by stating the fact that the tax can be used on public facilities. Nevertheless, the professor refutes it by introducing the downside of over dependency on such tax revenue-government may become inert on dealing with cigarettes and unhealthy foods problems. Not eliminating unhealthy foods and not inhibiting radical use of cigarettes may be seen if the government depends overly on such tax revenue.

Average: 7.3 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 471, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...h the implementation of cigarettes tax. Whats worse is, people who used to buy unheal...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 30.3222958057 129% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1583.0 1373.03311258 115% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13961038961 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89929611211 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 153.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496753246753 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 484.2 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 28.0 21.2450331126 132% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 79.7816234356 49.2860985944 162% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.909090909 110.228320801 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0 21.698381199 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.81818181818 7.06452816374 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.303173201 0.272083759551 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138458508764 0.0996497079465 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0724473284032 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202275339656 0.162205337803 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0540212798806 0.0443174109184 122% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 13.3589403974 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 53.8541721854 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.0289183223 129% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 63.6247240618 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 10.7273730684 172% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.498013245 126% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?


Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.