Some countries today have passed laws against smoking in public buildings such as office and restaurants. Other countries have no intention of doing this.
Consider the possible argument on both side of these debate, and reach your own conclusion on which side you favour.
Most people agree that smoking in public areas should be banned to some extent. However, enforcing the law against this issue is a controversial tactic which appears to have a number of contradictory effects. We will consider both sides of the discussion in this essay.
On the one hand, those who support the banning of public smoking promote the idea that this may improve public health. They highlight the deteriorating effect of passive smoking on non-smokers who are exposing to serious health problems, like lung cancer or heart attack in public areas, such as offices and restaurants. Furthermore, opponents of public smoking claim that some vulnerable citizens especially those who suffer from respiratory problems, like asthma, should be protected against passive smoking in public amenities. They point to the evidence from countries, such as Sweden, where this appears to be the case, and urge other nations to follow suit. To the supporters of the idea, these benefits are convincing.
On the other hand, proponents of public smoking highlight the contribution of the tobacco industry to countries’ economy. They claim that banning smoking in public may adversely affect the financial revenue of this trade and lead to unemployment, economic recession and other economic side-effects. They also refer to evidence from other countries, like China and India, where publicly using this commodity has improved their economy. Moreover, critics of banning public smoking also point to personal freedoms that everyone should have in our democratic society. They insist that if governments enforced law against public smoking, people would be restricted and this may lead to social dissatisfaction and both political and financial instability in societies. This argument also appears to be powerful.
In conclusion, I would tend to side with proponents of banning public smoking. Not only does it seem to be much more beneficial to the health of people from all walks of life, but it is also protected city dwellers who suffer from respiratory problems. It would be more logical to develop more healthy trades and create smoking-free areas in public to enhance social health.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, well, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 7.85571142285 127% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 41.998997996 131% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1850.0 1615.20841683 115% => OK
No of words: 344.0 315.596192385 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.37790697674 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30665032142 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82200822019 2.80592935109 101% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517441860465 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 567.0 506.74238477 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 5.43587174349 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 20.2975951904 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1409087138 49.4020404114 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.823529412 106.682146367 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2352941176 20.7667163134 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05882352941 7.06120827912 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 3.9879759519 176% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.246480890188 0.244688304435 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0858361861924 0.084324248473 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0385979479142 0.0667982634062 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158717447978 0.151304729494 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0708585845085 0.056905535591 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 13.0946893788 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 50.2224549098 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.3001002004 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 78.4519038076 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.1190380762 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.