▶ Your Answer :
In the give a set of materials, the reading and the lecture both deal with special tax on tobacco. The lecturer challenges the reading passage’s argument that increasing cigarette tax has several benefits. First of all, the author contends that a higher tax will reduce the number of young smokers. In contrast, the lecturer refutes the statement by saying that it is untrue that an increase cigarette tax will deter teenage people from starting to smoke. A recent study shows that when the government increase tax on cigarettes, black-market would emerge and young people more likely to buy cigarettes from the black market. This is because cigarettes that black-market sales is cheaper, also they never check the buyer’s ID. As a result, teenage people can buy cigarettes easily. Thus, the claim the author insists is false. Second, the writer insists that increasing tax on tobacco positively affect the environment by the cultivation of tobacco. Speaker, however, rebuts by asserting that a higher tax will make sales of tobacco decrease. This is means that if people would not buy cigarettes due to its high prices, overall tax revenue will decrease. As a result, the government would not obtain the extra revenue to improve the environment. So, the notion the writer maintain is erroneous. Finally, the article argues that a higher cigarettes tax contribute to reducing poverty. On the other hand, the professor contentions by stating that it is unlikely that a higher tax on cigarette will alleviate poverty. This is supported by the fact that the tobacco industry creates a lot of job positions, such as agriculture, manufacturing and retail. If tax on cigarettes increase, many job opportunities would vanish, which means that the rate of poverty would increase even more. Therefore, the idea the article claims does not make sense. |