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 reading and the lecture are both about the settlements of Chaco Canyon and how these buildings were used. Both claims that, there are no clear answer for the question. But the professor argues that non of the theories pointed out in the passage has strong scientific evidence.
The first theory states that the buildings were used for residential purpose and hundreds of people lived in one house. However, the professor points out that, inside structure of these houses does not support this claim as there are no enough fire places for hundreds of people. She states that even though there are many large rooms, number of fire places could had been sufficed at most for ten families.
Second passage suggest that these structures were used to store foods, especially "grain maize". But professor states that, evidence found from excavations does not support this theory, as up to date there are no reports of finding maize or maize containers from the site. Furthermore, she states that if these were used to store grain maize there should be abundance of maize containers. Therefore she casts doubt on this theory.
Final theory states that these houses were used as ceremonial centers. Passage states this because archaeologists have found large number of broken pots from the site "Pueblo Alto". However professor contradicts this by saying that archaeologists also have found many other types of artifacts from the site. Sans, stones, construction tools are among these, which suggest that this could not be a ceremonial site. Moreover, professor states that this might be a construction site.
In conclusion, although reading provides three theories about how the Chaco Canyon great houses were used, professor provides concrete evidence to refute those theories. Therefore still the question still remains unanswered.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 148, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'answers'?
Suggestion: answers
...d. Both claims that, there are no clear answer for the question. But the professor arg...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 365, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...arge rooms, number of fire places could had been sufficed at most for ten families....
^^^
Line 5, column 400, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...hould be abundance of maize containers. Therefore she casts doubt on this theory. Fina...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 193, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... from the site 'Pueblo Alto'. However professor contradicts this by saying th...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 171, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...rete evidence to refute those theories. Therefore still the question still remains unansw...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, so, still, therefore, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 5.01324503311 160% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1571.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 293.0 270.72406181 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36177474403 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57022194356 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 145.348785872 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532423208191 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 419.366225166 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.23620309051 36% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.0465022332 49.2860985944 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.4117647059 110.228320801 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2352941176 21.698381199 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.70588235294 7.06452816374 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => 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: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.124814122765 0.272083759551 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0430578990507 0.0996497079465 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484475643685 0.0662205650399 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0764010810953 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0198620246779 0.0443174109184 45% => 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: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => 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: 13.51 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.