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 and the lecture are both about chaco great houses. The author of the reading feels that three ways about the chaco great house. The lecturer challenges the claims made by the author. The lecturer thinks that that three ways of authors are not corrected according to Chaco structures.
First of all, the author argues that according to chaco structure it can be residential. It is mentioned that chaco house appear strikingly similar to the large apartment building. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He claims that if many people have been living at here. It should be many fire places. Furthermore, he says there are only one fire place and it is not resident for people.
Secondly, the author suggests that chaco structure were used to store food supplies. The article notes that main crops was stored in there. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests that it didn’t covered each room. He elaborates on this by mentioning that if it maize stored, there should be crops in the floor.
Finally, the author states that hose used as ceremonial centers. Moreover, the article says that broken pots and food used for some ceremonies. In contrast, the lecturer’s position is that this house used for store building materials. He notes that meals used for labors who worked in there and broken pots were building materials which bring for the build.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 142, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...hree ways about the chaco great house. The lecturer challenges the claims made by ...
^^^
Line 1, column 197, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...allenges the claims made by the author. The lecturer thinks that that three ways of...
^^^
Line 1, column 217, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...made by the author. The lecturer thinks that that three ways of authors are not corrected...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 18.0 30.3222958057 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1167.0 1373.03311258 85% => OK
No of words: 232.0 270.72406181 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03017241379 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90276135726 4.04702891845 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48022799669 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.530172413793 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 348.3 419.366225166 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 12.0 21.2450331126 56% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.1930142615 49.2860985944 49% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 61.4210526316 110.228320801 56% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 12.2105263158 21.698381199 56% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.114293474744 0.272083759551 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0350621209071 0.0996497079465 35% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0390261178935 0.0662205650399 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0687620020267 0.162205337803 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.030798251195 0.0443174109184 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.4 13.3589403974 63% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 67.76 53.8541721854 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 6.8 11.0289183223 62% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.01 12.2367328918 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.42419426049 91% => OK
difficult_words: 50.0 63.6247240618 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 4.5 10.7273730684 42% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 6.8 10.498013245 65% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.