As early as the twelfth century a.d., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their “great houses,” massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories high. Archaeologists have been trying to determine how the buildings were used. While there is still no universally agreed upon explanation, there are three competing theories.
One theory holds that the Chaco structures were purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. Supporters of this theory have interpreted Chaco great houses as earlier versions of the architecture seen in more recent Southwest societies. In particular, the Chaco houses appear strikingly similar to the large, well-known “apartment buildings” at Taos, New Mexico, in which many people have been living for centuries.
A second theory contends that the Chaco structures were used to store food supplies. One of the main crops of the Chaco people was grain maize, which could be stored for long periods of time without spoiling and could serve as a long-lasting supply of food. The supplies of maize had to be stored somewhere, and the size of the great houses would make them very suitable for the purpose.
A third theory proposes that houses were used as ceremonial centers. Close to one house, called Pueblo Alto, archaeologists identified an enormous mound formed by a pile of old material. Excavations of the mound revealed deposits containing a surprisingly large number of broken pots. This finding has been interpreted as evidence that people gathered at Pueblo Alto for special ceremonies. At the ceremonies, they ate festive meals and then discarded the pots in which the meals had been prepared or served. Such ceremonies have been documented for other Native American cultures.
The reading presents three theories to explain how Chaco buildings were used. Conversely, the lecuture casts doubt on the assumptions made in the passage.
First, the reading says that one theory states that the buildings were used for residential purposes, each house supporting hundreds of people. Supporters of this theory says that the buildings share some architectural characteristics with other well-known appartments in other region of Mexico. However, the lecture claims that even if the façade of the buildings look similar to other residential properties, their internal structures are not adapted to domestical purposes. For example, there are few fire places, which people needed to prepare food. Because of that, the lecture says that the building could not have been used as a residence.
Next, the passage states that another theory is that the buildings may have been used as storage for food supplies. Chaco people cultivated grain maize and they may have used the buildings to store this food for the future. The lecture counters this by saying that excavations in the region did not find substancial traces of maize or remains of a big container to buttress that conclusion.
Last, the reading presents a thirdy theory that claims that Chaco structures may have been used as ceremonial centers. Excavations in the area revealed deposits containing a relevant number of broken pots. These objects may have been discarded after being used to prepare and serve meal during ceremonies, like reported by other by other Native American cultures. The lecture, in contrast, says that not only pots were found during the excavation, but also lots of other materials like sand, stone and other regular objects which could have been used by the construction workers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 321, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'by other'.
Suggestion: by other
...e meal during ceremonies, like reported by other by other Native American cultures. The lecture, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, however, if, look, may, so, third, well, for example, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 7.0 171% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 1.00243902439 599% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 5.0 6.8 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 3.15609756098 475% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 19.0 5.60731707317 339% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 33.7804878049 95% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 3.97073170732 76% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1502.0 965.302439024 156% => OK
No of words: 284.0 196.424390244 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28873239437 4.92477711251 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10515524023 3.73543355544 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65023682098 2.65546596893 100% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 106.607317073 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.545774647887 0.547539520022 100% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 283.868780488 161% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.45097560976 110% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 1.53170731707 131% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.33902439024 207% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 1.0 1.07073170732 93% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.482926829268 207% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 3.36585365854 89% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 8.94146341463 157% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.4926829268 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.3614187194 43.030603864 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.285714286 112.824112599 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2857142857 22.9334400587 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.78571428571 5.23603664747 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 3.83414634146 104% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 1.69756097561 59% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 3.70975609756 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 1.13902439024 263% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.09268292683 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111174619428 0.215688989381 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0441967993834 0.103423049105 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0323674447531 0.0843802449381 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0761126720019 0.15604864568 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0200621009809 0.0819641961636 24% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 13.2329268293 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 61.2550243902 84% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.51609756098 48% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 10.3012195122 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 11.4140731707 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.06136585366 108% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 40.7170731707 179% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.4329268293 74% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.9970731707 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.0658536585 81% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.