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, wellknown
“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.
In the passage, the author has tried to find out what could have been the use of the Chaco great houses and has presented three theories as a token of explaining what might be going on. The lecturer, however, points out that the arguments made in the passage are very inconclusive and refutes them all by presenting his point of view.
First of all, the author mentions as a reason that the use of the houses could have been solely residential that could contain about hundreds of people per building. He/she tries to back up the theory by saying that the great building has resemblance to Southeast societies while presenting specific comparison to apartment architecture in New Mexico. However, the speaker points out that it could not have been possible because, for a family to survive, they would have to have fireplaces for cooking. It has been found that there were very fewer fireplaces compared to the whole place. So according to the speaker, the purpose could not have been residential.
Second, the author pointed out that the reason might have been food storage, particularly of grain maize. He/she supported this theory by saying that maize is a very long-lasting food and the size of the houses would have been very suitable for storing them. But the speaker debunks it by saying that if maize had actually been restored in those houses, it would have been dug up in the excavation. In reality, not very much trace of maize cannot be found on the floor.
Third, the author says it is possible that the houses were used for ceremonial purposes. The author reasoned his/her theory by saying that near the house, Pueblo Alto, a great pile of broken pots has been discovered and it might suggest that those pots were broken after meals were prepared in them as a part of any ceremony. The speaker casts doubt over this theory by saying that this is not the only material that were found near the site, like sand, stones or other construction materials. The speaker tried to contend that the situation might be different because those pots may represent that they belonged to the construction workers after they had consumed their meals. The site that the archaeologists found might been just a regular trash heap with other elements too.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 495, 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.
...stones or other construction materials. The speaker tried to contend that the situa...
^^^
Line 13, column 679, 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.
...rs after they had consumed their meals. The site that the archaeologists found migh...
^^^
Line 13, column 724, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have been' or 'be'?
Suggestion: have been; be
...ite that the archaeologists found might been just a regular trash heap with other el...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, third, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 10.4613686534 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 5.04856512141 297% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 22.412803532 192% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 30.3222958057 165% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1879.0 1373.03311258 137% => OK
No of words: 388.0 270.72406181 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84278350515 5.08290768461 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42658711114 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 145.348785872 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.484536082474 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 561.6 419.366225166 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.55342163355 90% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.23620309051 146% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.6541463859 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.4375 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.875 7.06452816374 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0695178082431 0.272083759551 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0253457339084 0.0996497079465 25% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0211259642552 0.0662205650399 32% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0448665161522 0.162205337803 28% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0163809019443 0.0443174109184 37% => 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: 13.5 13.3589403974 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 53.8541721854 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 10.7273730684 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.