The lecture talks about the policy of higher tax on smoking and unhealthy food should be taken. He/She says it can discourage people from smoking and having unhealthy food, making the financial fairer and increasing government revenue. However, the professor totally refuses the passage.
Firstly, the passage states that if a higher tax is implemented, it will encourage people to smoke less and have unhealthy food less. On the contrary, the lecture says that the higher tax will not lead to better behavior. If the cigarette tax rises, the smoker will buy cheaper ones, which is more harmful to smokers. Similarly, the unhealthy food eater will have less money left to buy healthy food after they buy unhealthy food. This directly contradicts what the passage suggests.
Secondly, the passage suggests that if the policy will not be implemented, it is unfair to everyone in the society. However, the speaker argues that it is also unfair to the unhealthy food eater. Because the tax policy does not take the income into consideration, it is unfair to those low earners. It will become a much higher burden to the low earners. This is another part where the lecture goes against the reading.
Thirdly, the passage contends that the government revenue will be increased so they can construct many welfare stuff. This is contrary to the claim in the lecture that the government will highly depend on the policy. So, the government will be less likely to take a force policy to refuse smokers to smoke in the public, because it may decrease the government income.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 99, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun stuff seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much welfare stuff', 'a good deal of welfare stuff'.
Suggestion: much welfare stuff; a good deal of welfare stuff
...will be increased so they can construct many welfare stuff. This is contrary to the claim in the l...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, third, thirdly, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 5.04856512141 257% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1309.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 263.0 270.72406181 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97718631179 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.02706775958 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49316027164 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494296577947 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 405.9 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.8600904218 49.2860985944 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.8125 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.4375 21.698381199 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => 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 : 10.0 4.45695364238 224% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.296612760751 0.272083759551 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0986702551207 0.0996497079465 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0685556888378 0.0662205650399 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191110888082 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0684152166298 0.0443174109184 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 13.3589403974 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => 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.