Tpo53
In this set of material, the writer strongly postulates that imposing a high tax on cigarettes and other unhealthy products would lead to several advantages for society, and provides three reasons to endorse its idea. The lecturer on the other hand mentions that each argument made in listening is dubious and impractical, and gainsays each argument from the reading.
First and foremost, the reading begins by asserting that raising taxes would help people to prevent developing unhealthy habits. This is because when cigarettes are made costly fewer people will buy them. The lecturer refutes this claim by pointing out that increasing the tax on cigarettes will encourage people to buy cheaper cigarettes and similar products that are far more dangerous for public health. Moreover, when people spend their money on costly cigarettes, smokers would not have enough money left to buy healthy food options. That prone healthy risks to them.
Furthermore, the speaker mentions that there are other ways to make fair policies but this taxing policy is fairly injustice considering the monthly income of the individuals. To be more specific, there are high earning and low earning people in a society. It might not be arduous for a high income earning person to pay high cigarette tax, but it will add up the financial burden for a low earning smoker. These claims refute the writer's implication that taxes are financially fair as it would apply to those who smoke, and not other individuals of society have to contribute.
Lastly, the writer wraps up the arguments by declaring that taxation increases the revenue for the government which they can use for the development of the society. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes issue with it by contending that the downside of this revenue would be that government would become too dependent on that. Not only the revenue of million dollars will lure the authorities not to implement fines on smokers, but also prohibit them to adopt radical measures such as policies for public and outdoor smoking
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 365, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...per cigarettes and similar products that are far more dangerous for public health...
^^
Line 3, column 433, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...arning smoker. These claims refute the writers implication that taxes are financially ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, lastly, moreover, so, such as, 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: 12.0 5.04856512141 238% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1713.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 335.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11343283582 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59904878328 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.54328358209 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 419.366225166 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2884029314 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.357142857 110.228320801 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9285714286 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.92857142857 7.06452816374 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.27373068433 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.437927552755 0.272083759551 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135397199504 0.0996497079465 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0724992456086 0.0662205650399 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237636998929 0.162205337803 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.06853805939 0.0443174109184 155% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 83.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.0 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.