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 writer and the lecturer dissent on the purpose of the large ancient buildings in the Chaco Canyon. The writer asserts the three purposes that those buildings could have been used. However, the lecturer refutes the claim of the writer and explain in detail for those reasons to be void.
Firstly, the writer claims that the large buildings were used purely for the residential purpose. He further adds with the specific example of the Taos, New Mexico. However, the lecturer rebuts this claim of the writer. He states that the facade of the building could suggest it's purpose to be of similar as the apartment buildings but the interior architecture casts the doubt on this claim. In addition, he mentions about the fireplace present in those buildings was sufficient for 10 families while the amount of room had threshold of accommodating 100 families.
Secondly, the writer believes that the buildings were used for store of the food supply. In particular, the maize which doesn't get easily spoilt was stored in copious amount and served as a long-term food supply. The lecturer opposes this belief of the writer by stating that the archaeological department didn't find any traces of maize in a significant amount and large containers to store those gains in the apartments.
Lastly, the writer posits that the buildings were used for ceremonial purposes. Furthermore, he mentions the instance of the mold of a broken pot discovered in Pueblo Alto suggesting it is a discarded pot after a ceremonial event. In contrast, the lecturer underscores the presence of construction materials and construction implements which are unlikely to be present in the ceremonial event. He infers that those pots were nothing but the mold of the remains of the superfluous construction materials or the pots used by labors for their repast.
To conclude, the writer and the lecturer hold a conflicting opinion about the purpose of the large buildings in Chaco Canyon settlements. It is certain that they will have a trouble finding the common ground to this situation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 120, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... supply. In particular, the maize which doesnt get easily spoilt was stored in copious...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 306, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ting that the archaeological department didnt find any traces of maize in a significa...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, while, in addition, in contrast, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1724.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 339.0 270.72406181 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08554572271 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74798671449 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480825958702 0.540411800872 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 521.1 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
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: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.6208032769 49.2860985944 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.411764706 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9411764706 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23529411765 7.06452816374 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.27373068433 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.129486806022 0.272083759551 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0499447928267 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396544415063 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0750054468495 0.162205337803 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0218834072925 0.0443174109184 49% => 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: 12.5 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.2367328918 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 63.6247240618 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 10.7273730684 56% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.