WHO has recently announced that a USA is considering imposing heavier taxes on Junk food. This astonishing announcement has created a huge sensation, followed by a lot of on/offline demonstrations. And I also suggest Junk food not be more heavily taxed than health food due to three reasons: First, it will damage social economy. Second, it is not realistic. And third, we can plan better policies to reduce junk food problems.
Initially, it’s certainly predictable that imposing higher taxes is harmful for social economy. One of the important reasons why McDonalds has become one of the world’s largest chains of every industry is its reasonable price. Is it imaginable for McDonalds still to be the strongest economic part of America with ‘heavy’ taxes? With more numbers of people worried about bad effects of junk food, heavy tax will certainly make customers not buy them, at least much less than they did with lower prices. Then what would happen after that, with much smaller number of customers, discouraged industry and also dismissal notices! Deadening junk food industry will be a huge damage also because junk food is ‘a necessary evil’ for current, suffocatingly busy, American people.
Moreover, it is an unrealistic proposal due to two reasons. First, the biggest world-wide economic crisis has been a huge concern for every industry, including junk food industry. Especially with growing worries for junk food quality, they are severely competing against each other, not only with price, but with more diverse and better services and menus. The government’s intervention will make this industry more chaotic, without bringing any realistic help. And second, it’s hardly acceptable if junk food, with much lower material costs, would have heavier taxes than health food. Tax payers and junk food customers will distrust about what the government is doing with high taxes. So this non-sense ‘heavier’ tax policy sounds as if it just goes directly to the government’s pockets, without any concrete alternatives to solve junk food problems.
Speaking of which, third reason is that we can have alternative plans to settle junk food problems because simple tax policies usually bring up more negative opinions than positive ones. What junk food industry can do, and what they are actually doing now, is trying to use healthy—at least healthier—ingredients. It would probably lead to higher price, but it is still acceptable because it is derived from better quality, not empty taxes. At the same time, the government can bring up more programs and facilities where junk food addicts can get professional help. Campaigns through media and systematic preventive education in public/private schools should go together.
These three reasons are supporting the idea that junk food should not be more heavily taxed than health food. To sum up, it is more acceptable for junk food customers to be provided with better educational support from the government, not with heavy taxes.
Form:
답글삭제First off, let's just say that the thesis is clearly argued!
Some comments are:
The essay has no title (unless “Thesis statement: Junk food should not be more heavily taxed than health food.” is intended as the title).
The essay does not exactly follow the structure advocated by Björk and Räisänen in “Academic Writing”. For instance, the thesis statement is in a one-sentence paragraph at the top (with “Thesis statement: ...” written out explicitly), rather than in a paragraph between the introduction and the arguments. The latter would make the text flow better. The structure should be as follows:
1.An introduction that awakens interest in the topic/issue/question
2.A well-defined issue or question to argue for or against
3.A clearly stated claim or position
4.Arguments for your clain
5.Clearly acknowledged counter-arguments
6.Refutation of counter-arguments
The introductory paragraph of this essay directly lists the arguments, which is a bit unnecessary since the corresponding paragraphs follow directly afterwards and they are also repeated in the conclusion. (Also, the introduction – or the introduction of the introduction, so to speak – should introduce the subject in a general sense, without narrowing it down to the actual thesis or arguments immediately. See 1 in the list.)
The first supporting paragraph is well structured. Perhaps the last sentence, “Deadening junk food industry will be a huge damage also because junk food is ‘a necessary evil’ for current, suffocatingly busy, American people.” could be developed further and put in a supporting paragraph on its own since what it describes does not affect social economy (depending on how you look at it – maybe it does!).
The second paragraph could perhaps be split into two paragraphs (one reason per paragraph). That would make the topic sentences more clear, rather than just “it is an unrealistic proposal due to two reasons”.
There are no examples of counter-arguments (and hence no refutations of counter-arguments) included in the essay, which again differs from the structure presented by Björk and Räisänen (5 & 6 in the list).
And finally, maybe the concluding paragraph could have been developed further (it looks a bit short in comparison to the others).
Language:
답글삭제Not much to complain about here, except a few things:
The first person plural “I” should be avoided. Maybe “And I also suggest Junk food not be more heavily taxed than health food due to three reasons” could be rewritten to avoid its use. (stylistic)
There are some contractions such as “it's”. These should be rewritten as “it is”. (stylistic)
Also, avoid using “/” in expressions such as “online/offline”. It is better to write something like: “both online and offline”. (stylistic)
The sentence “And I also suggest Junk food not be more heavily taxed than health food due to three reasons:” should not end with a colon, but rather a period, since the examples listed are presented in separate sentences.
The sentence “Then what would happen after that, with much smaller number of customers, discouraged industry and also dismissal notices!” should end with a question mark since it is a question, not an exclamation.
In the sentence: “So this non-sense ‘heavier’ tax policy sounds as if it just goes directly to the government’s pockets...” - “it” probably refers to the money, not the policy. The sentence could perhaps be rewritten.
Otherwise not much to complain about, except some minor things, such as:
“a USA” --- the US
“Junk food” --- junk food (no initial capital latter)
“McDonalds” --- McDonald's
“second” --- secondly
“third”--- thirdly
“junk food production” --- junk-food production (use a hyphen if used as a prefix)
There are also a few grammatical errors (mainly the use of articles and plural forms).
Edit: The first-person pronoun “I”
답글삭제Ooops! I now realize that I didn't follow the peer response guide in Academic Writing (p. 94) exactly. I don't know if this is necessary, but I will try to comment on a few extra things below:
답글삭제Content and Structural Aspects
1. I would say that the most positive feature of the text is the strong arguments and the rich language. There are also several examples given (McDonald's, opinions about government, the world-wide crisis, etc.)
2. The claim is obviously that "junk food not be more heavily taxed than health food". (As argued above, the statement could be included in a "thesis" paragraph following the introduction - rather than at the top or in the introduction.)
3. I think all four arguments are quite strong.
4. No counter-arguments included. (Perhaps it could be mentioned here why WHO wants to put extra taxes on junk food, as stated in the introduction. Plus a suitable refutation.)
5. As argued above, the sentence "Deadening junk food industry will be a huge damage also because junk food is ‘a necessary evil’ for current, suffocatingly busy, American people." could perhaps be seen as irrelevant, or be expanded into an extra argument.
6. As far as I can see, there are no weak arguments.
7. All paragraphs are coherent. Perhaps the fourth could be split into two, as mentioned earlier. The topic of each paragraph is (according to me):
"Thesis statement: Junk food should not be more heavily taxed than health food."
"WHO has recently announced that a USA is considering imposing heavier taxes on Junk food."
"it’s certainly predictable that imposing higher taxes is harmful for social economy."
"it is an unrealistic proposal due to two reasons" (or rather: "he biggest world-wide economic crisis has been a huge concern for every industry, including junk food industry" + "it’s hardly acceptable if junk food, with much lower material costs, would have heavier taxes than health food.")
"we can have alternative plans to settle junk food problems because simple tax policies usually bring up more negative opinions than positive ones."
"These three reasons are supporting the idea that junk food should not be more heavily taxed than health food."
8. It would be nice with a few counter-arguments.
Language and Style
1. Examples of effective sentences are: "The government’s intervention will make this industry more chaotic, without bringing any realistic help." (the word "chaotic" draws attention to itself), "Tax payers and junk food customers will distrust about what the government is doing with high taxes." ("distrust" is a very strong word, especially since "tax payers" and "junk food customers" are ordinary people), "simple tax policies usually bring up more negative opinions than positive ones." (in the US public opinions are extremely important). And of course, the inclusion of "the world-wide crisis" - something that we all can relate to.
2. See comments above, including:
"With more numbers [a larger number] of people worried about bad effects of junk food, heavy tax[ing/es] will certainly make customers not buy them, at least much less than they did with lower prices." This is a bit cumbersome to read and make sense of. Could it perhaps be simplified?
"Especially with growing worries for junk food quality, they are severely competing against each other, not only with price, but with more diverse and better services and menus." Who are 'they'?
3. See comments above, including:
답글삭제(comments in square brackers)
WHO has recently announced that a USA [the US] is [are] considering imposing heavier taxes on Junk food [junk food]. This astonishing announcement has created a huge sensation, followed by a lot of on/offline demonstrations. And I also suggest [that] Junk food [junk food] not be more heavily taxed than health food due to three reasons: First, it will damage social economy. Second[ly], it is not realistic. And third[ly], we can plan better policies to reduce junk[-]food problems.
Initially, it’s certainly predictable that imposing higher taxes is harmful for social economy. One of the important reasons why McDonald[']s has become one of the world’s largest chains of every industry is its reasonable price[s]. Is it imaginable for McDonalds still to be the strongest economic part of America with ‘heavy’ taxes? With more numbers [a larger number] of people worried about bad effects of junk food, heavy tax[ing/es] will certainly make customers not buy them, at least much less than they did with lower prices. Then what would happen after that, with [a] much smaller number of customers, [a] discouraged industry and also dismissal notices! Deadening junk[-]food industry will be a huge damage also because junk food is ‘a necessary evil’ for current, suffocatingly busy, American people.
Moreover, it is an unrealistic proposal due to two reasons. First, the biggest world-wide economic crisis has been a huge concern for every industry, including [the] junk[-]food industry. Especially with growing worries for junk[-]food quality, they are severely competing against each other, not only with price[s], but with more diverse and better services and menus. The government’s intervention will make this industry more chaotic, without bringing any realistic help. And second[ly], it’s hardly acceptable if junk food, with much lower material costs, would have heavier taxes than health food. Tax payers and junk[-]food customers will distrust about what the government is doing with high taxes. So this non-sense [nonsense] ‘heavier’ tax policy sounds as if it just goes directly to the government’s pockets, without any concrete alternatives to solve junk food problems.
Speaking of which, [the] third reason is that we can have alternative plans to settle junk[-]food problems because simple tax policies usually bring up more negative opinions than positive ones. What junk[-]food industry can do, and what they [it] are [is] actually doing now, is trying to use healthy—at least healthier—ingredients. It would probably lead to higher price[s], but it is still acceptable because it is derived from better quality, not empty taxes. At the same time, the government can bring up more programs and facilities where junk[-]food addicts can get professional help. Campaigns through media and systematic preventive education in public/private schools should go together.
These three reasons are supporting the idea that junk food should not be more heavily taxed than health food. To sum up, it is more acceptable for junk[-]food customers to be provided with better educational support from the government, not with [rather than with] heavy taxes.
Good job Bobae! And wow, Niclas, you really put your heart and soul into the peer response task - very well done! /Anna
답글삭제