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 no universally agreed-upon explanation is found on Chaco structures and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor explains that the evidence found inside the house is not convincing at all and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the article posits that Chaco structures were purely residential with each housing hundreds of people. The professor opposes this point by saying that the apartment was not actually used for residential purposes. He states that there were fewer fireplaces inside the house for cooking hundreds of people. There found fireplaces that would be enough for the highest ten people.
Second, the article claims that Chaco structures were used to store food supplies. However, the professor says that this is unsupported by the evidence found. According to the professor, there remain many big containers that don't support the claims.
Third, the article says that houses were used as ceremonial centers. The professor refutes this point by explaining that this is not well supported. We also learn that there were lots of other broken parts, building materials like sand, stone. As there was much constructional material, the house was not used as a special ceremonial center.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 226, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
..., there remain many big containers that dont support the claims. Third, the artic...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, second, so, third, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 16.0 30.3222958057 53% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1064.0 1373.03311258 77% => OK
No of words: 197.0 270.72406181 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.40101522843 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.74642080493 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60568813508 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 107.0 145.348785872 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.543147208122 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 317.7 419.366225166 76% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 20.9631968292 49.2860985944 43% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.8461538462 110.228320801 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.1538461538 21.698381199 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.23076923077 7.06452816374 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141944121845 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0533621673245 0.0996497079465 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.039860433277 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0864472068134 0.162205337803 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0279042290853 0.0443174109184 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 13.3589403974 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.45 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 63.6247240618 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.