Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they contrast with the points made in the reading.
The debate over public smoking has raised a number of public policy issues, most prominently in the areas of public health, economics, and personal rights. Few people dispute the health risks of cigarette smoking. Smokers assume risks every time they light up, just as people assume calculated health risks whenever they get into a car, eat fried food, or drink alcohol. Smokers choose to risk their health of their own free will.
Much has been made about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Policy makers have cited statistical dangers as a reason to proliferate smoking bans in public businesses -- particularly restaurants, bars, and nightclubs. However, the statistics produced are suspect, at best. In fact, a federal judge dismissed an Environmental Protection Agency claim that 3,000 people die of lung cancer annually due to secondhand smoke.
Researchers have found that it takes at least 20 years for direct smokers to develop a cancerous malignancy. It would take longer than a lifetime to develop cancer from inhaling secondhand smoke.Smoking bans also affect the freedoms and economic positions of business owners and their employees. Indeed, many restaurant and bar owners have had to shut down, unable to sustain revenue losses of twenty percent or more. Others have lost large sums of money on now useless ventilation systems. Employees of these establishments have experienced corresponding reductions in their tip income.
But the most disconcerting issue is the erosion of personal freedoms. America has always sought to protect the rights of minorities, which is what smokers are, making up just a quarter of the U.S. population. Smokers pay significantly higher taxes each year, yet have watched their rights disappear. The federal government collects over $7.5 billion in excise taxes annually from smokers, and individual states collect billions more. Yet even as these taxes increase, smokers' rights have declined. It makes one wonder which freedoms will vanish next.
The passage opposes the smoking bans by citing various claims related to public health, economics and personal rights. According to the passage, smokers must be allowed the freedom to smoke freely without any restriction since they are tax payers and have every right to do so. The woman in the lecture clearly refutes these claims by attacking each and every reason the author of the passage presents in favor of free smoking.
First, the author suggests that secondhand smoking is not as precarious and detrimental as many believe. On the other hand, the lecturer argues that second hand smoking can be a cause for fatal diseases such as Heart diseases. In her opinion, lung cancer which takes a relatively longer time to develop, is not the only threat from secondhand smoking. Thus, the author's claim that second hand smoking is not dangerous is unjust.
Second, the passage states that a smoke ban will result into economic loss due to shut down of many bars and restaurants. However, according to the lecturer, the results would be opposite. Smoke bans would allow a relatively larger population to get out of their homes, since they would not have to endure smoke environments. Therefore, the restaurant and bar owners should support smoke bans since they can attract the non-smokers.
Finally, the author insinuates that imposing a smoking ban would be an erosion of personal freedom. On the contrary, the lecturer states that depriving the non-smokers of the clean air is actually an obstruction to the personal freedom. In addition to this, a smoking ban would also encourage many of the addicts to quit smoking. Smoking bans do not ask the smokers to quit smoking but prevent them to smoke in company of the non-smokers. The lecturer cites an essential instance in the city of Montana where the health risks dropped by 40 percent.
Thus, in conclusion, according to the lecturer, the health risks induced due to smoking are far more precarious than the benefits obtained from free smoking.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, second, so, therefore, thus, in addition, in conclusion, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 5.04856512141 198% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 22.412803532 62% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1679.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 334.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02694610778 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56581236532 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 145.348785872 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526946107784 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 509.4 419.366225166 121% => 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: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 2.5761589404 349% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 25.1702851115 49.2860985944 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 98.7647058824 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6470588235 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.58823529412 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.110652089323 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0390342429514 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0330533652431 0.0662205650399 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.063508365678 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0244516289773 0.0443174109184 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 13.3589403974 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.