pay more taxes on cigarettes
In this reading passage, the author insists that smokers should pay more taxes on their cigarettes. However, the professor disagrees with this idea. There are three reasons why she refutes this.
Firstly, the article considers higher taxes make the cigarettes expensive and thus reduce their demand, keeping smokers from unhealthy behaviors. In contrast, people would like to buy a cheaper and low-quantity kind of cigarettes instead of a normal one, which also has more harmful chemical material and cause more damage to health. Furthermore, people could not reduce their demand for unhealthy food.
Secondly, as the author said, it will let smokers rather than ordinary people to pay more money for their behavior and it means the finance fair. But, the professor points out that because everyone has a different income level and not everyone could afford a higher expense on cigarettes. For example, if there are a high-income person and a low-income person addicting with cigarettes. It is unfair to ask for both pay the same money, and it will become the extra burden of low-income people.
Finally, even though the government indeed increases its revenue, the consequence of it could become worst. Actually, the government won't push the process of limiting cigarettes again, which will cut off the source of the extra revenue. For example, the government is not going to ban smoking in outdoor anymore.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 104, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... expensive and thus reduce their demand, keeping smokers from unhealthy behaviors...
^^
Line 5, column 330, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'people', 'persons'?
Suggestion: people; persons
...For example, if there are a high-income person and a low-income person addicting with ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, thus, for example, in contrast, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 4.0 10.4613686534 38% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1190.0 1373.03311258 87% => OK
No of words: 228.0 270.72406181 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21929824561 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.88582923847 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56637045454 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 145.348785872 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.605263157895 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 369.9 419.366225166 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.1806571263 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5384615385 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5384615385 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2307692308 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247201000297 0.272083759551 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0697830175044 0.0996497079465 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0912859738684 0.0662205650399 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130521535293 0.162205337803 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066664897036 0.0443174109184 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.7 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 56.0 63.6247240618 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 10.7273730684 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => 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.