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 usedto 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.
Both the reading passage and the lecture discuss how the great houses of Chaco were used. While the reading provides three competing theories, the lecturer casts doubt on all of these theories.
First of all, the author of the article contends that the houses were used for residential purposes because these type of houses were also found in more recent Southwest societies. However, the speaker argues that the buildings were seem to be residential only from outside. If the buildings were residential place, there would have many fireplaces there for cooking. A large house contain only a few fireplaces.
Secondly, the article claims that the houses were used to store large amount of food supplies like maize for longer period of time. In contrast, the lecturer asserts that recent excavation didn't find any trace of maize or any container to store the foods. They only found some traces of maize in the floor, but no big containers were found.
Finally, the third theory states that the houses were used for ceremonial purposes and provide identified broken pots in Pueblo Alto as an evidence. On the contrary, the professor refutes this claim and mentions that recent excavation only found other materials rather than pots. Some of the pots they found only contained leftover meal by the workers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 234, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'seemed'.
Suggestion: seemed
... speaker argues that the buildings were seem to be residential only from outside. If...
^^^^
Line 5, column 117, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... of food supplies like maize for longer period of time. In contrast, the lecturer asserts that...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 190, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...lecturer asserts that recent excavation didnt find any trace of maize or any containe...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 281, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...found other materials rather than pots. Some of the pots they found only contained leftover...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, while, in contrast, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
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: 1097.0 1373.03311258 80% => OK
No of words: 216.0 270.72406181 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0787037037 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.83365862548 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35592658824 2.5805825403 91% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.597222222222 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 340.2 419.366225166 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.1815726703 49.2860985944 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.4166666667 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.83333333333 7.06452816374 139% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.164635840315 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0651846092484 0.0996497079465 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0391764272164 0.0662205650399 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0987571797133 0.162205337803 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0400892169683 0.0443174109184 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.3589403974 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.2367328918 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 63.6247240618 85% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => 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.