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 usedto 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 excerpt states that there are three competing theories about how the great house which is massive stone buildings in New Mexico were used, the author provides three reasons for support these uses. However, the lecture's audio claims that there are a lot of problems with the author's theories and he refutes each of them by stating the cause of these uses is not obvious.
First, the article avers that the Chaco structures were purely residential because they were similar to the large, well-known apartment buildings at Taos. In contrast, the professor opposes this idea by saying that this is right only from the outside of the houses, but, from the inside, this leads to doubt because if hundreds of people lived there, so, there should be many fireplaces to be used for cooking. However, there were only a few of them for about only ten families but the rooms were for more than one hundreds persons. So, this idea of using these building for the living is not accurate and not credited to what the professor discussed.
Second, the passage posits that Chaco structures used to store food such as maize and protected them from spoiling. In contrary, the lecturer argues this point by stating that this idea does not support by pieces of evidence because if these large rooms were used for storage, thus, there should be some traces of the remains of maizes or their containers. Thus, this point of view contradicts what the professor explained.
Third, the excerpt mentions that these houses were used for special ceremonies because there are many pieces of evidence that there was large number of broken pots in which meals been prepared or served. On the other hand, the speaker counters this theory and explains that in addition to the pots remaining, there were other construction materials such as sands and stones, so, these houses might be a trash for construction materials, moreover, the remaining of the pots might be used by the construction workers. Thus, this outlook is definitely wrong.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 223, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'lectures'' or 'lecture's'?
Suggestion: lectures'; lecture's
...ns for support these uses. However, the lectures audio claims that there are a lot of pr...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 513, Rule ID: A_HUNDREDS[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. Consider using: 'one hundred'
Suggestion: one hundred
...milies but the rooms were for more than one hundreds persons. So, this idea of using these b...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, moreover, second, so, third, thus, well, in addition, in contrast, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 15.1003584229 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 9.8082437276 41% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 13.8261648746 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 43.0788530466 70% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 52.1666666667 75% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1685.0 1977.66487455 85% => OK
No of words: 341.0 407.700716846 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.94134897361 4.8611393121 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35238511735 2.67179642975 88% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 212.727598566 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.516129032258 0.524837075471 98% => OK
syllable_count: 509.4 618.680645161 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.51630824373 99% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 9.59856630824 52% => OK
Article: 10.0 3.08781362007 324% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 3.51792114695 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.86738351254 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.94265232975 81% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 20.6003584229 58% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 20.1344086022 139% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.8036819141 48.9658058833 157% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.416666667 100.406767564 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4166666667 20.6045352989 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3333333333 5.45110844103 190% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.5376344086 36% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 11.8709677419 34% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.88709677419 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.140292905133 0.236089414692 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.05505280566 0.076458572812 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056848269483 0.0737576698707 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0896442707884 0.150856017488 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0424747864201 0.0645574589148 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 11.7677419355 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 58.1214874552 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 10.1575268817 128% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 10.9000537634 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.01818996416 110% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 86.8835125448 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.002688172 130% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 10.0537634409 131% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.247311828 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
We are expecting: No. of Words: 350 while No. of Different Words: 200
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 60.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.