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 article states that there are some explanations about how buildings in Chaco Canyon were used and provides three competing theories. However, the professor explains that none of those theories are convincing and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading states that the Chaco structures were purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. The professor opposes this point by saying that even though the external looking of those structures look like apartment buildings, as he said, the inside layout gives some doubt about this claim. If one hundred people were living there, it will be necessary a lot fire places for daily cooking. However, evidences showed that there were fire places for only ten families. In that way, this place could not been used as residences by the Chaco people.
Second, the article claims that the Chaco structures were used to store food supplies. However, the professor contends that this theory is unsupported by evidences. Excavations had not find a large number of grain maize evidence, the main crops of the Chaco people. If the buildings were used to store food, why there are not evidences of large amount of maize or big containers. Thus, this claim is not well supported.
Third, the reading avers that houses were used as ceremonial centers, because excavations find large number of broken pots. Conversely, the lecture refutes this point by stating that there were also find other materials different from broken pots, such as sand, stone, and construction tools. Likewise, these houses could be used as a trash construction store place that people deposited used material. So, the broken pot from Pueblo Alto is not a good evidence to support that they were used for ceremonial purposes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 186, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'found'.
Suggestion: found
...orted by evidences. Excavations had not find a large number of grain maize evidence,...
^^^^
Line 5, column 191, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... by evidences. Excavations had not find a large number of grain maize evidence, the main crops of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, conversely, first, however, if, likewise, look, second, so, third, thus, well, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 10.4613686534 172% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 30.3222958057 82% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1483.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 287.0 270.72406181 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16724738676 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11595363751 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47178103103 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.550522648084 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 455.4 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.0396916607 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.6875 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9375 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.10675403927 0.272083759551 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.039670175926 0.0996497079465 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0361806095008 0.0662205650399 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0721102660196 0.162205337803 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0196830915713 0.0443174109184 44% => 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: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 63.6247240618 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.5 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.