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 article states that, despite there is not a generalized agreement among scholars about the function of the buildings in Chaco Canyon’s settlement, exist three theories about it. However, the lecturer explains that those ideas are not supported by evidences and refutes each reason, casting doubts in the author’s beliefs.
Firstly, the reading points out that those structures could be used as residential buildings, that could have held hundreds of individuals. Notwithstanding, the professor disproves this idea by stating that, it is true that the exterior look like a residential edifices, but there is not proves of enough bonfires to maintain that number of families. Furthermore, he notices that not only in the largest house found, there was discovered fires capable to support only around ten families living together there, not enough rooms were found for such a large number of people.
The second idea presented by the article argue that those houses were used to store food supplies, like maize. The orator contradicts this point saying that there is not evidence that support this affirmation. Moreover, in the researches carried out there, were not found rests of containers or any other prove that hold this position.
Finally, the third theory presented by the writer says that those places were used as a ceremonial center. Nonetheless, the orator remarks the weakness of this point, noting that, again, there are not evidences that support it. All the materials found in the place mentioned are more like residues of the construction’s process, that those expected in a religious place, owing to they are fundamentally sand, stones, and rests of pots that could be utilized in building tasks.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 262, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'edifice'?
Suggestion: edifice
...at the exterior look like a residential edifices, but there is not proves of enough bonf...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 549, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...e, not enough rooms were found for such a large number of people. The second idea presented ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 409, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'sanded'.
Suggestion: sanded
... place, owing to they are fundamentally sand, stones, and rests of pots that could b...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, look, moreover, nonetheless, second, so, third, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1471.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 275.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34909090909 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07223819929 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8296330399 2.5805825403 110% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.589090909091 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 445.5 419.366225166 106% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 13.0662251656 84% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.606242061 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.727272727 110.228320801 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 21.698381199 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.3636363636 7.06452816374 147% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0737591551069 0.272083759551 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.02666431533 0.0996497079465 27% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0304245202658 0.0662205650399 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0463789010424 0.162205337803 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.019258301985 0.0443174109184 43% => 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: 16.3 13.3589403974 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.53 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.7273730684 140% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.