Both the reading and the lecture talk about considering high taxes for cigarettes and unhealthy foods. The author of the excerpt is of the opinion that the raising in the cost of cigarettes and unhealthy foods provides us with several social benefits and discuss three of them. Nonetheless, all of the benefits mentioned in the article are challengeable in the professor's eyes, accordingly, she denies all of them by providing some explanation.
First and foremost, according to the author of the reading, such a consideration via government can prevent people from an unhealthy diet. However, the professor in the lecture refutes this claim by stating that in such a situation addicted individuals will not cut off smoking, rather they will buy cheaper cigarettes all of which cause more harmful atmosphere in a society since they are in a lower quality than expensive ones. In addition, he says that people will not change their food habits, so they will buy unhealthy food. Consequently, they will encounter with less remained money to spend on healthy foods.
The author of the article further asserts that such a decision is really fair for people, since eventually, all people must accept the same cost of living; either smokers who make pollutant in air and cause diseases for all people, or the rest of people that are forced to consider cost to their diseases brought by unhealthy behavior of smokers. Nevertheless, the professor in the lecture rebuts this implication by referring to the discrimination between people with higher income and people with lower income. In fact, in such a condition, individuals with low revenue will be faced with more difficulties to buy cigarettes or unhealthy foods.
The author of the excerpt lasting insists that an increase in taxes of such products and foods gives governments a good chance to use their great revenue of such taxes to do some beneficial projects. In this way, all dwellers will benefit. In contrast, the professor denies this idea by saying that the governments now can adopt regulations to prevent the harmful effect of such products on people, for instance
Both the reading and the lecture talk about considering high taxes for
cigarettes
and
unhealthy
foods
. The
author
of the excerpt is of the opinion that the raising in the cost of
cigarettes
and
unhealthy
foods
provides us with several social benefits and discuss three of them. Nonetheless,
all of the
benefits mentioned in the article are
challengeable
in the professor's eyes,
accordingly
, she denies all of them by providing
some
explanation.
First
and foremost, according to the
author
of the reading, such a consideration via
government
can
prevent
people
from an
unhealthy
diet.
However
, the professor in the lecture refutes this claim by stating that in such a situation addicted individuals will not
cut
off smoking,
rather
they will
buy
cheaper
cigarettes
all of which cause more harmful atmosphere in a society since they are in a lower quality than expensive ones.
In addition
, he says that
people
will not
change
their
food
habits,
so
they will
buy
unhealthy
food
.
Consequently
, they will encounter with less remained money to spend on healthy foods.
The
author
of the article
further
asserts that such a decision is
really
fair
for
people
, since
eventually
, all
people
must
accept the same cost of living; either smokers who
make
pollutant in air and cause diseases for all
people
, or the rest of
people
that
are forced
to consider cost to their diseases brought by
unhealthy
behavior of smokers.
Nevertheless
, the professor in the lecture rebuts this implication by referring to the discrimination between
people
with higher income and
people
with lower income. In fact, in such a condition, individuals with low revenue will
be faced
with more difficulties to
buy
cigarettes
or
unhealthy
foods.
The
author
of the excerpt lasting insists that an increase in taxes of such products and
foods
gives
governments
a
good
chance to
use
their great revenue of such taxes to do
some
beneficial projects. In this way, all dwellers will benefit.
In contrast
, the professor denies this
idea
by saying that the
governments
now
can adopt regulations to
prevent
the harmful effect of such products on
people
, for
instance