chacho house use
The article is about the Chaco canyon building and its use in an earlier time. There are many theories explained in the article which support the settlement in a certain way. However, the professor disagrees with each and stated a contradictory explanation.
To begin with, the first theory states that the Chaco structure was purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. However, the professor sees flaws in this theory and stated that although the structure has many numbers of apartments it does not have any fireplace. If people would have been living there, fireplaces are a must for every 100 families. He stated further that only 10 fireplaces were in Chaco canyon.
The second theory explained by the author is that structures were used to store food supplies like grain maize. The professor explains that there is no supporting evidence to prove this. He stated that although the building has large empty rooms this in no way supports this theory. If this place had been used to store grain then there must be a maize container, where maize would have been stored, also no leftover maize was found. He further stated that in the excavation of material, no maize container was found. Hence, both points suggest that Chaco in no way was used to store grain.
The third theory states that houses were used as ceremonial centers as there were pots found in which meals could have been eaten. excavating However the professor see this theory as also disappointing and stated that when the excavation was done, there were other materials also found beside the pot and they have no role in the ceremonial event. Those materials were, soil, mud, and tools, these are considered leftover materials that were used while constructing the building.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 288, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had been'?
Suggestion: had been
... does not have any fireplace. If people would have been living there, fireplaces are a must for...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 132, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Excavating
...d in which meals could have been eaten. excavating However the professor see this theory ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 142, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... meals could have been eaten. excavating However the professor see this theory as...
^^
Line 7, column 482, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e used while constructing the building.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, however, if, second, so, then, third, while, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 10.4613686534 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 22.412803532 112% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1475.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 295.0 270.72406181 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45179670765 2.5805825403 95% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522033898305 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 453.6 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.9345905815 49.2860985944 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.1875 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4375 21.698381199 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.875 7.06452816374 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.115282799441 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0419359322175 0.0996497079465 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523058414501 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0706189591263 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.025207783543 0.0443174109184 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 13.3589403974 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.42 8.42419426049 88% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.5 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.