# data[].attributes.body
In recent years, the rise in obesity rates has become a pressing public health issue. Some argue that governments should impose taxes on fast food as a way to discourage its consumption and combat obesity. In my opinion, while the taxation of fast food may encourage healthy food choices and generate public health revenues, these benefits are heavily eclipsed by the regressive taxation on low-income groups and the limited effectiveness it may cause.

Admittedly, fast food taxes would encourage people to make healthier choices by making unhealthy options more expensive. If fast food becomes more expensive, people will be more likely to choose healthier, more affordable options instead. This could lead to a reduction in the consumption of fast food, which is associated with a range of health problems, including obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Furthermore, the revenue generated from these taxes could be used to fund public health initiatives and education programs to raise awareness about the importance of healthy eating.

However, the aforementioned advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages for some main reasons. One reason is that it may disproportionately affect low-income individuals who rely on fast food due to its affordability and accessibility. Fast food is often more affordable and convenient than healthier food options, making it a go-to choice for those on a tight budget or with limited time. Therefore, if fast food becomes more expensive due to taxes, it could lead to financial strain for these individuals and may be considered a regressive tax. This could result in a situation where those who are already struggling financially may be unfairly burdened by the additional cost. Furthermore, fast food taxes may not be as effective in reducing obesity rates as some proponents suggest. People may simply substitute fast food with other unhealthy options if fast food becomes more expensive. For example, they may opt for other types of processed food or high-calorie snacks instead of fast food.

In conclusion, while the idea of imposing taxes on fast food to address the issue of obesity may seem appealing, the potential drawbacks and limitations must be taken into account. Rather than relying solely on taxation, a more holistic approach that includes education, public awareness campaigns, and regulations may be more effective in promoting healthier diets and reducing obesity rates.

# data[].attributes.body
Nowadays, a huge number of people are facing health problems due to excessive use of fast food. Some people are of the view that to reduce these diseases related to obesity, the government should increase the tax on such food items. From my perspective, I disagree with that point because it may shut down the junk food business, instead of that, banning these fast food advertisements may be better to deal with this problem.

Undoubtedly, consuming too much fast food leads to many health-related concerns. If people consume junk food daily, they are likely to face obesity and high blood pressure. However; this was not the justifiable reason to impose a higher tax on this kind of food because it depends on the amount of consumption per person. Therefore, the health-related knowledge and these campaigns and advertisements supporting junk food was the main reason.

Fast-food commercials shown on multimedia platforms such as television may become the main inspiration for people to consume fast food. Fast food advertising frequently targets a huge number of youngsters. As a result, they will ask their parents to enjoy those fast meals. Moreover, Children are the age group most susceptible to health problems, especially obesities. Therefore, Rather than raising taxes, the government can limit junk food advertisements during peak hours such as dinner time or minimize the frequency of advertisements in children's recreational areas.

In addition, imposing a tax on fast food not only will not reduce the number of people suffering from health problems but it might also close down the junk food business. Because of the increased tax imposed, people are not likely to purchase and eat these fast food items, therefore it will harm the income and customers of these chains of restaurants.

To conclude, I am of the opinion that although fast food affects our health seriously, the junk food business should not be imposed a higher tax. Instead, the government should limit these advertisements related to such food and educate people about health issues caused by excessive fast food consumption.

# data[].attributes.body
It is increasingly common in the society that people become excessively consume fast food which poses a serious threat to human health. I opine that the authority necessarily raises the tax this unhealthy food with a view to preventing inhabitants from junk food overconsumption.
First and foremost, imposing a higher tax on fast food makes individuals have less intention to consume fast food. Nowadays, fast food is still affordable as it is made with unhealthy ingredients. It is necessary to raise the tax of this kind of food so that ppl will consider trying others which is cheaper and heathier for them. For instance, according to a survey in France, there is over 90% inhabitants rarely consume fast food as this kind of food is doubled extravagant than other such as traditional food.
I hold the belief that there should be a larger tax on fast food because public health is crucial to the prosperity of a nation. If an individual consumes fast food frequently, obesity and high blood pressure are likely to develop over time. Therefore, it is necessary to raise fast food`s tax so that the rate of some particular diseases can be decreased.
In conclusion, imposing a higher tax of fast food is of vital importance to decline the overconsumption so that individuals can approach a healthier lifestyle.

# data[].attributes.body
We are living in an era when some people tend to put convenience before health. One example of this is the excessive comsumption of fast food, which causes risks of severe health issues. To remedy the problem, some people believe it is the government's duty to increase tax on this form of food. Personally, I concur with the mentioned view due to the downsides of fast food and the financial efficiency of the solution.

P1
- People eat fast food due to the convenience and affordable price.
- Fast food can be a quick escape from anxiety and stress.
- However, whatever be the reason, surely fast food still had detrimental impacts on health: obesity, raising blood pressure,...

P2
- I believe higher tax can be a solution.
- In order to save money, people will prefer home-cooking => lessen the rate of health issues
- The government can spend more money on other crucial areas such as investing in hospitals' infrastructure and service and improving the quality of healthier food.

# data[].attributes.body
The illustration delineates the percentage of four different materials recycled from 1982 to 2010 in a certain region.

Overall, it is clear that the recycling of all materials showed an upward trend throughout the period. While the percentage of aluminum cans increased dramatically, that of remaining sources varied little from year to year.

In 1982, there were only two materials that have been recycled, which are glass containers, and paper & cardboard with the rate of 50% and 65% respectively. These two materials both fluctuated modestly in the next 8 years; however; the figures for paper & cardboard still outstripped that of glass containers by 30% in 1994. In the remaining years, from 1994 to 2010, while the former decreased gradually to 70%, the latter experienced an upward trend, reaching the point of 60%, a little bit smaller than the former.

Furthermore, the recycling of aluminum cans began 2 years later with the lowest rate at the beginning of the period, at 5% in 1986. However, this trend recycling drastically increased and picked up pace over the years then in 2010 approximately 45% of aluminum cans were recycled.
In addition, plastic recycling began in 1990, the latest one of the four materials, at about 5%; however it remained the least recycled item, about 9% over the period.

# data[].attributes.body
The line graph presents the recycling rates of four distinct materials from 1982 to 2010.

Overall, it is evident that the rates of recycled paper and cardboard and glass containers demonstrated significant fluctuations over the given period, in contrast to the other two categories.

Starting at 65% in 1982, the recycling rate of paper and cardboard exhibited an erratically increasing trend, followed by a peak at 80% in 1994. This was before experiencing a steady decline to 70% by the end of the period. Conversely, the recycling rate for glass containers experienced a 10% decrease in the first three years, after which this figure registered an upsurge, culminating in a peak of 60% in 2010.

Aluminum cans secured the third position, with a gradual but consistent increase, from approximately 5% to nearly 45% between 1986 and 2010. In contrast, the recycling rate for plastics remained virtually unchanged, hovering between 5 to 10% throughout the given timeframe.

# data[].attributes.body
The graph illustrates the percentage of 4 different materials that was recycled from 1982 to 2010. Looking from an overall perspective, an upward trend through the period can be seen, especially at aluminium cans which rose from 5% to 45% during the period.
Paper and cardboards had the highest rate of being recycled, started from 65% in 1982, slightly fluctuated and reached the peak of 80% in 1994. There was a gradual decline of recycled papers and only 70% remained. Glass containers experienced an insignificant decrease from 50% to 40% in 1990 and climbed to 60% at the end of the period.
Recycling aluminium cans appeared 4 years later compared to papers and glass containers. However, it showed a significant surge during the period, escalated from 5% to 45% in 2010. Plastics showed up the latest and held the smallest proportion with only less than 5% in 1990 and ranked 8% after 20 years.

# data[].attributes.body
As we've seen from the board, the chart for recycling rate of materials from 1982 to 2010. Firstly, its clear to see that the percentage of recycled paper and cardboard has experience the most change so far. Starting of at almost 60% and a half in 1982 it go up to 70% at the end of 1986 but go down to over it in 1990. However, it jumps up to 80% in 1994 and finally decending back to 70% in 2000. As for glass container, it goes from 50% in 1982 to just 40% in 1990 slowly rise to 60% in 2000. The percentage of alumininium cans compare to others, starts from 1986 at just below 5%, rises to just barely 25% in 2002 and experience a jump to 45% in 2000. The same cannot be said for the percentage of plastics, it barely changes throughout the years and ending at just below 10%.

# data[].attributes.body
Several remarkable comparisons in the percentage of different recycled materials between 1980 and 2010 are illustrated in the given line graph.
Overall, all kinds of mentioned materials in terms of paper&cardboard, glass containers, alumininium cans and plastics experienced upward trends from 1980 to 2010. Moreover, paper&cardboard witnessed the highest recycling rate while plastics hit the lowest point over the given timeframe.
A more detailed look at the chart shows that paper&cardboard which had the largest proportion of recycling saw a fluctuation from the first year to 1990, at 65%. In addition, there was a decline in the share of recycled glass containers in the first 8 years, fell from 50% to 40%, whereas the opposite pattern could be observed in allumininium cans, accounted for 0% in the first given years and 10% in 1990. Noticeably, plastics was not recycled from 1982 to 1990.
Considering the statistics from 1990 to 2010, there was a growth in the recycling rates of glass containers, from 50% to 60%. Similarly, alumininium cans 'recycling rate in the last year was over 3 times higher than that in 1990, accounted for 45% and 10% respectively. The lowest percentage of recycling still belonged to plastics, at below 10% in the whole period.

# data[].attributes.body
The line chart shows information about recycling percentages for 4 specific materials from 1982 to 2010.

Overall, all given materials experienced an ascending trend during the mentioned period. While the most dramatic increase was recorded in the rate of Alumininium cans, that of plastics undergone an opposite.

As is observed, in the beginning of the period, the proportion of paper and cardboard took the lead of the field, taking up 65%, which was 15% more than that of glass containers. Despite witnessing a moderate decline in 1990, both patterns got back to rise sharply 4 years later. While glass containers continued to increase and peaked at 60%, paper and cardboard declined slightly and reached 70%.

Meanwhile, aluminum cans had the lowest rate at first, at about 5% to 10%. By 2010, after a significant growth, the percentage of aluminum cans was 45%, which was 9 times as much as that in 1986. However, it seems that citizens did not prefer recycling plastics much, since it remained lowest throughout the period, ranging from 5% to approximately 10%.