Both reading and listening is about the imposing high tax on unhealthy food as what done before on cigarettes.

Both reading and listening is about the imposing high tax on unhealthy food as what done before on cigarettes. Whereas the reading posits that this could have a numeber of benefits, and provides three benefits. The professor challange this idea and cast doubs on each benefit. To start with, according to the article, this tax could discourage people to engage in this unhealthy behavior of buying and un healthy food. Moreover, this may help to reduce the obesity rates. However, the lecturer refuts this point by explaining how tax increase on cigarettes has not stopp the smokers from buying them. Instead, they start buying sheaper kind that could be more harmful. The same senareo could be in the unhealthy food bayer. They would continue buying them, and that could lead to less money for the healthy food. Secondly, according to the author, this tax is fair, because it is for the poeple who choose this unhealthy activity. On the other hand, the lectuer explains how this might be not fair for the people with low income, because they will be effected more than the one with a higher income. Same with unhealthy food, some people would continue to buy it, and this might lead to less money for the healthy food. Finally, the passage posits that this tax could use to the benefit of everyone. The professor comments on this by saying that the government could make more restection on smoking, like prohebit it in the parkes or outdoors. But the govenment does not want to lose this high income from cigarettes.