TPO 53, High taxes on cigarettes
The passage presents some reasons to support applying taxes on cigarettes and unhealthy food policy. The article claimed that it has number of social benefits. On the other hand, the professor casts doubt on all reasons described in the text and provides some counterclaims to refute them all.
First of all, the article asserts that taxes would discourage people from doing unhealthy behavior in they would stop smoking. The lecture, on the contrary, bright the light to the fact that raising taxes on cigarettes caused smokers to buy cheaper ones with lower quality which is very harmful to them. Therefore this idea is not effective and cannot stimulate smokers to cease smoking.
Second, the passage claims that high taxes on unhealthy behavior like smoking is fair because the medical facility and budget should equally be distributed among people in society. As people who engage in unhealthy conditions are more probable to consume medical service, they should pay to cover the costs. However, the lecture highlights the fact that the concept of fair could be perceived from another perspective. She said that high taxes for people with less income would be unfair in comparison with people who had higher income. Certainly, people who had less income would had less money to buy healthier food. So, this policy results in more unhealthy people.
Finally, the author provides this reason that the income form taxes could be spent on many public facility, for instance, building a stadium. In contrast, speaker dismisses this idea. She said that the as the government received conspicuous money from taxes they applied, they will not decide to do something which results in reduction of smokers because they do not want to lose the huge amount of money from taxes. For instance, they will not assign public smoking prevention law or the regulation in which smoking will be limited.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 305, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... quality which is very harmful to them. Therefore this idea is not effective and cannot s...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 582, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...ainly, people who had less income would had less money to buy healthier food. So, t...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, second, so, therefore, for instance, in contrast, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 30.3222958057 135% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1596.0 1373.03311258 116% => OK
No of words: 310.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14838709677 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41299163198 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 145.348785872 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.538709677419 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 480.6 419.366225166 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.9517859097 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.75 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.375 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 7.06452816374 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
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: 0.130960034972 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0404904645444 0.0996497079465 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0530312141494 0.0662205650399 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0799201116059 0.162205337803 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0215237616667 0.0443174109184 49% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 63.6247240618 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.