Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes; similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods. The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of social benefits.
First of all, the taxes discourage people from indulging in unhealthy behaviors. Raising taxes on cigarettes, for instance, leads people to buy fewer of them. Smoking has declined as taxes on tobacco have risen, showing that these taxes do work to make society healthier. It can be expected that imposing similar taxes on unhealthy food and beverages would help reduce obesity rates.
Second, taxes of this kind are financially fair. When people get sick as a result of their smoking or eating unhealthy foods, they create medical costs. It is unfair that everyone in the society, including nonsmokers and people who follow a healthy diet, should contribute equally to covering these costs. Taxing people who engage in unhealthy behaviors creates extra income that can be used to cover the medical costs. In this way, some of the financial burden is shifted from all of society to just those who choose to participate in the unhealthy activities.
Finally, the high rate of taxation on cigarettes significantly increases revenue for the government. In addition to using this tax revenue on medical assistance, governments often use the revenue for other projects that benefit public welfare, such as building stadiums or creating public parks. Even basic government-supported services like public education benefit from these taxes. Thus, the taxes on cigarettes, and the proposed taxes on unhealthy foods, benefit everyone.
The listening and the reading have a debate on the social benefits regarding the high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products. The reading claims that it will bring about various social benefits, which is contradicted by the listening.
Firstly, the author states that high taxes discourage addicted people from purchasing more unhealthy products. However, the point is refuted by the professor, who believes that it does not lead to healthy appetite. Dur to the high taxes, it will cost people more money to gain the kind of products, which they used to buy. Such cigarettes typically contain even more harmful substances than better quality cigarettes, and present even greater health risks. Similarly, imagine how some consumers might react to same taxes on unhealthy foods. They might continue buying the unhealthy foods they prefer even if it's more expensive, and as a result, have less money left to spend on healthy foods. That certainly wouldn't benefit their health.
Also, as for the reading's idea that it contributes to financially fair, the speaker holds a different view. It might seem fair for people indulging in unhealthy behaviors to pay for the consequences of those behaviors through high taxes, but some people would argue that these taxes are unfair. In fact, the author does not take the income into consideration. People's income can be divided into different levels. Compared to people with low income, people with relatively high income will affect less by these high taxes on unhealthy foods. If a higher earning person and a lower earning person are addicted to cigarettes, and each smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, paying the tax would be a greater expense for the lower earner relative to his or her income. The same argument applies to the food taxes, so many people believe these taxes are not fair, because they create a much greater burden for those with lower incomes than for those with higher incomes.
Finally, the writer shows an opinion that those high taxes will increase government revenue, which will be used for promoting public welfare. However, the speaker puts forward that government might abuse those high taxes. This income represents millions and millions of dollars, and governments become dependent on it and don't want to lose it. In consequence, the governments might not be forceful enough pursuing policies and implementing laws that might eliminate unhealthy habits all together. For example, they are unlikely to adopt radical measures such as not allowing smoking in outdoor public areas such as parks, or even banning smoking in all outdoor areas public or private, because they don't want to lose this income.
In a nutshell, by giving all these three reasons, the listening successfully goes against the reading article.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state sponsored Olympic teams Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 76
- Many countries require cigarette smokers to pay particularly high taxes on their purchases of cigarettes similar taxes are being considered for unhealthy foods The policy of imposing high taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy products has a number of so 80
- On Balmer Island where mopeds serve as a 55
- The Salton Sea in California is actually a salty inland lake The level of salt in the lake s water what scientists call its salinity has been increasing steadily for years because the lake s water is evaporating faster than it is being replaced by rainfal 85
- The council of Maple county 55
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 709, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... spend on healthy foods. That certainly wouldnt benefit their health. Also, as for t...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readings'' or 'reading's'?
Suggestion: readings'; reading's
...nefit their health. Also, as for the readings idea that it contributes to financially...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 323, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... governments become dependent on it and dont want to lose it. In consequence, the go...
^^^^
Line 7, column 700, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...r areas public or private, because they dont want to lose this income. In a nutsh...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, regarding, similarly, so, as for, for example, in fact, kind of, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 5.04856512141 277% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 7.30242825607 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 30.3222958057 155% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2349.0 1373.03311258 171% => OK
No of words: 455.0 270.72406181 168% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16263736264 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61852021839 4.04702891845 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51461997317 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 145.348785872 158% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505494505495 0.540411800872 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 719.1 419.366225166 171% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.51434878587 396% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 13.0662251656 168% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0032888085 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.772727273 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6818181818 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.09090909091 7.06452816374 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 4.33554083885 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 4.45695364238 269% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285956921032 0.272083759551 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0786954073442 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0795756540564 0.0662205650399 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.140896854861 0.162205337803 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0820878103812 0.0443174109184 185% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 13.3589403974 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 63.6247240618 167% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.