Tobacco, mainly in the form of cigarettes, is one of the most widely-used
drugs in the world. Over a billion adults legally smoke tobacco every day.
The long term health costs are high-for smokers themselves, and for the
wider community in terms of health care costs and lost productivity.
Do governments have a legitimate role to legislate to protect citizens from
the harmful effects of their own decisions to smoke, or are such decisions
up to the individual?
Recently, the phenomenon of tobacco and its corresponding impact has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that banning using drug is highly beneficial, such issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that legislation to stopping smoking can be a plus, and I will analyze it through this essay.
From the sociological stand, selling cigarettes can provide the society with some beneficial effects which are rooted in the fact that earning wealth, as well as governmental power, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered regulations help youngsters to use tobacco. Thus, both detrimental ramifications of public health and wasting money apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of psychological science, smoking might increase the consequences of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Moreover, fundamental aspects of the heart arrack relate to this reality that the demerits of lung cancer pertain to these widely-used drugs. As a tangible example, scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of freely smoking is correlated negatively with not having a special role. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notion of legislating prohibiting tobacco.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of banning cigarettes far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of protecting people prove the significance of it, but also pinpoint health and cost implications.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-02-10 | amin_mostafavi | 80 | view |
| 2018-02-07 | amin_mostafavi | 80 | view |
| 2018-01-29 | Arash3agle | 79 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.5418719212 95% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 6.10837438424 82% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 8.36945812808 84% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 20.9802955665 95% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 31.9359605911 97% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.75862068966 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1447.0 1207.87684729 120% => OK
No of words: 255.0 242.827586207 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.67450980392 5.00649968141 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.99608801488 3.92707691288 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26630179447 2.71678728327 120% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 139.433497537 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.690196078431 0.580463131201 119% => OK
syllable_count: 459.0 379.143842365 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 1.0 1.56157635468 64% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.5024630542 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.1748869833 50.4703680194 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.583333333 104.977214359 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 20.9669160288 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.33497536946 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 6.9802955665 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 2.75862068966 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 2.91625615764 69% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0936247651614 0.242375264174 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0317182735683 0.0925447433944 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0221433829377 0.071462118173 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0502666580388 0.151781067708 33% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0056312170042 0.0609392437508 9% => 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: 15.9 12.6369458128 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 53.1260098522 63% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 10.9458128079 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 11.5310837438 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.81 8.32886699507 130% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 55.0591133005 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.94827586207 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.3980295567 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.5123152709 114% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.