The reading passage focuses on the tax policy of unhealthy products. And the reading passage claims that the policy has many benefits and should be carried out. The professor, however, states that all three points in the reading could be challenged. In her lecture, she gives three points to bolster her viewpoint.
First of all, the reading passage believes that tax can reduce the buying of unhealthy products. The professor contends that these policies are not necessarily lead people to healthy behaviours. For instance, a high tax will only make people who used to buy high-quality cigarettes turning to low-quality cigarettes. And since the low-quality cigarettes contain more harmful materials, it will be riskier. Also, people who used to get accustomed to junk food won't change the eating style simply because of tax.
Moreover, the professor argues that simply charging a tax for unhealthy products is an unfair action. The income of people should also be taken into consideration. For examples, if the government charges the same tax for both the low-income people and the high-income people, the tax will exert nearly no effects in stopping high-income people from buying these unhealthy products.
Finally, the reading passage believes these high tax can, in turn, become the revenue for the government to generate more benefits for citizens. However, the professor cast doubts on the reading passage's ideal. The professor states that these tax policies will bring millions and millions income for the government, and the government might want to keep a high income by releasing policies and taking measurements that not radical enough to stop people from getting rid of the unhealthy products.
The reading passage focuses on the tax policy of unhealthy products. And the reading passage claims that the policy has many benefits and should be carried out. The professor, however, states that all three points in the reading could be challenged. In her lecture, she gives three points to bolster her viewpoint.
First of all, the reading passage believes that tax can reduce the buying of unhealthy products. The professor contends that these policies are not necessarily lead people to healthy behaviours. For instance, a high tax will only make people who used to buy high-quality cigarettes turning to low-quality cigarettes. And since the low-quality cigarettes contain more harmful materials, it will be riskier. Also, people who used to get accustomed to junk food won't change the eating style simply because of tax.
Moreover, the professor argues that simply charging a tax for unhealthy products is an unfair action. The income of people should also be taken into consideration. For examples, if the government charges the same tax for both the low-income people and the high-income people, the tax will exert nearly no effects in stopping high-income people from buying these unhealthy products.
Finally, the reading passage believes these high tax can, in turn, become the revenue for the government to generate more benefits for citizens. However, the professor cast doubts on the reading passage's ideal. The professor states that these tax policies will bring millions and millions income for the government, and the government might want to keep a high income by releasing policies and taking measurements that not radical enough to stop people from getting rid of the unhealthy products.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 436, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[4]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'accustomed to junking'.
Suggestion: accustomed to junking
...e riskier. Also, people who used to get accustomed to junk food wont change the eating style simpl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, moreover, so, for example, for instance, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 6.0 10.4613686534 57% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1451.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 272.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33455882353 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06108636974 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67985958274 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 145.348785872 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518382352941 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 434.7 419.366225166 104% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.644129822 49.2860985944 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.7333333333 110.228320801 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1333333333 21.698381199 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.86666666667 7.06452816374 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.444379833885 0.272083759551 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.201720421429 0.0996497079465 202% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.204813558595 0.0662205650399 309% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.333595061787 0.162205337803 206% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.280387072893 0.0443174109184 633% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.3589403974 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 63.6247240618 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.