Early twentieth century Chaco construction purpose. the professor refutes the reading claims mentioned in the passage.
The lecture and the lecture both discuss the purpose of the early Chanco canyon huge buildings. While the reading claims that, although the archaeologist couldn't conclude; they proposed several theories to determine their purpose, the lecture refutes this, saying that unfortunately, none of the theories are convincing.
First of all, the reading claims that the Chaco constructions are for residential purpose because it accommodates large families. However, the professor argues that although the outside looks like a residential building; interior cast doubt because there are a few fireplaces; those are not enough for a hundred families. Furthermore, the lecture counters that if it is for a residential purpose for a large number of families, it definitely needs more fireplaces to prepare food, but those rooms contain only a few places. so, it is not for people to live definitely.
In addition, the passage makes the argument that Chaco built large rooms for storage purpose to store and supply maize to people for a long time. The lecture counter this point by saying that there is no fossil record support that those rooms are for storage. According to the professor, Archeologist aren't found any spilled Maize on the floor and not evidence of big containers to store the maize,
Lastly, the reading passage posits that they are used those buildings for ceremonial functions: the archaeologists found a large number of broken potes. The lecture refutes this claim by pointing out that the evidence is not well supported. Moreover, the lecture says that the scientist also found other materials; sand, gravel, construction tools. so, it is like a trash place rather a ceremonial area and the broken pots are the containers for cooking used by construction workers.
.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 155, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...claims that, although the archaeologist couldnt conclude; they proposed several theorie...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 401, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... if it is for a residential purpose for a large number of families, it definitely needs more fire...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 525, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: So
... those rooms contain only a few places. so, it is not for people to live definitel...
^^
Line 4, column 301, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...ccording to the professor, Archeologist arent found any spilled Maize on the floor an...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 122, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ial functions: the archaeologists found a large number of broken potes. The lecture refutes this ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 350, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: So
...ials; sand, gravel, construction tools. so, it is like a trash place rather a cere...
^^
Line 5, column 485, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...r cooking used by construction workers. .
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, look, moreover, so, well, while, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 15.1003584229 79% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 9.8082437276 0% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 13.8261648746 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.0286738351 100% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 43.0788530466 60% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 52.1666666667 42% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 8.0752688172 74% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1501.0 1977.66487455 76% => OK
No of words: 285.0 407.700716846 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26666666667 4.8611393121 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.48103885553 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78659922027 2.67179642975 104% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 212.727598566 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.533333333333 0.524837075471 102% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 618.680645161 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => 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: 2.0 3.51792114695 57% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.94265232975 40% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 23.0 20.1344086022 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.8101224906 48.9658058833 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.083333333 100.406767564 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 20.6045352989 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.16666666667 5.45110844103 168% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.5376344086 126% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 11.8709677419 42% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.85842293907 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88709677419 20% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144155068494 0.236089414692 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0568643212936 0.076458572812 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0564792744403 0.0737576698707 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0888302166008 0.150856017488 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0330017830176 0.0645574589148 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 11.7677419355 130% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 58.1214874552 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 10.1575268817 121% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 10.9000537634 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.01818996416 106% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 86.8835125448 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.002688172 110% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.0537634409 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.247311828 107% => 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: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.