Based on given materials, the article as well as the lecture discusses social benefits of high taxes on cigarette smokers purchases of cigarettes. The author states three benefits of this action. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate this claim.
Initially, the author says that it would be discourage people from indulging in unhealthy behaviors and leads them to buy fewer of them. However, the lecturer explains that by raising taxes on cigarettes, people are going to buy low quality and cheaper cigarettes which harm even worse than prior. Not only this reason makes the society healthier, but also leads society into crisis. Thus, it could not be logical way.
Second, the writer proclaims that the high taxes are financially fair because smokers create medical costs which is unfair that everyone in the society should equally cover these costs. Yet again, the speaker underscores that by an explanation. She assumes two smokers who have high earning and low. Increasing the taxes directly affects on low earning person which causes great expenses. Consequently, it creates much greater burden instead of what the writer have said.
The final point of contention between reading and listening passages is increasing revenue for the government. The author thinks it would be great situation for government. On the other hand, the speaker explains that the government depends on this budget. Consequently, the government avoid to forcing people by adopting new policies such some limitation for smoking in the public areas like parks. Based on this, it cannot be plausible reason.
- It is more important for governments to spend money to improve Internet access than to improve public transportation 92
- TPO 44 - Integrated Writing Task 81
- TPO 48 - Integrated Writing Task 3
- TPO 39 - mass-extinction 3
- Some parents offer their school-age children money for each high grade (mark) they get in school. Do you think this is a good idea? 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, however, second, so, thus, well, as to, as well as, 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: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 22.412803532 94% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1366.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 257.0 270.72406181 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31517509728 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5433783013 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.630350194553 0.540411800872 117% => OK
syllable_count: 406.8 419.366225166 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.681372274 49.2860985944 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 80.3529411765 110.228320801 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.1176470588 21.698381199 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52941176471 7.06452816374 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.98 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 63.6247240618 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.