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.
There are three competing theories to prove that the chaco canyon, which contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three to four stories high was used for various purposes like residential, storage and ceremonial centers. it has been refuted by the professor in the lecture providing alternate ways to describe the structure.
Firstly, according to the passage, the building resembles the modern-day apartments housing hundreds of people purely for residential purpose. However, the lecture presents us with the details of a smaller number of fireplaces used for cooking all 100 families, which could not accommodate as a valid reason that the chaco canyon house a myriad number of individuals.
Secondly, the theory of storage of maize grain in such a huge building is contrasted by the fact that storage could definitely lead to spilling of the grain or remains of containers whose traces are not seen in the structure.
Thirdly, the passage details elaborately on Pueblo Alto: an enormous mound formed by the pile of old materials, especially broken pots, which could have been used to prepare or serve festive meals. Nevertheless, it is disproved by stating that the house could have been used to store the trash of construction material and that the pots could have come from the cooking utensil of the construction workers.
Hence, to conclude, we can sum up the points that even though the building could have been perceived for different purposes, its uses are contradicted by various means in the lecture.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 223, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: It
...ential, storage and ceremonial centers. it has been refuted by the professor in th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1288.0 1373.03311258 94% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21457489879 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72014165333 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 145.348785872 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.599190283401 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 388.8 419.366225166 93% => 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: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 30.0 21.2450331126 141% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 41.2323826015 49.2860985944 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.0 110.228320801 146% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.875 21.698381199 142% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.75 7.06452816374 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.127992657771 0.272083759551 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562083932232 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0742534446047 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0734052844758 0.162205337803 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0697434059552 0.0443174109184 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 13.3589403974 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 53.8541721854 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.0289183223 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.53 12.2367328918 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.54 8.42419426049 113% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 10.498013245 133% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.