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 Caco 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 storedsomewhere, 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 listening discuss about the “great houses” which is located in the Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest. The reading passage suggests three competing theories how the buildings were used. However, the listening challenges each of the points.
First of all, the reading claims that the Chaco structure used as a residential purpose only because they are quite analogous to the “apartment buildings” at Taos, new Mexico, in which many people have been living for centuries. On the other hand, the lecture contends that they were never home for the hundreds of families as there were not enough fire places to keep warm the people. Though there were few fire places, they weren't home to the hundreds of families.
Second, the author of the passage claims that Chaco structures were used as a food storage. On the contrary, the profession in his lecture rebuts the argument. He elaborates on this be mentioning that if the food were stored in the structures there would have been a lot maize on the flood as maize was the main crops of the Chao people. So, they weren't the food storage at all.
Finally the passage claims that they were used as a ceremonial centers as many broken pots were found there. Nevertheless, like the two suggestions before the lecturer proclaims that this recommendation does not hold water.
In conclusion, the writer and the lecturer have different perspective on how the Chaco structures were actually used.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 427, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...Though there were few fire places, they werent home to the hundreds of families. S...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 348, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...main crops of the Chao people. So, they werent the food storage at all. Finally the...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...they werent the food storage at all. Finally the passage claims that they were used ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, in conclusion, first of all, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1253.0 1373.03311258 91% => OK
No of words: 250.0 270.72406181 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.012 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.97635364384 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58482030323 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 135.0 145.348785872 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.54 0.540411800872 100% => OK
syllable_count: 381.6 419.366225166 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3751827043 49.2860985944 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.3846153846 110.228320801 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2307692308 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2307692308 7.06452816374 145% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173176170765 0.272083759551 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0599068400797 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0621011875549 0.0662205650399 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0948394321246 0.162205337803 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0654927904743 0.0443174109184 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 13.3589403974 88% => 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: 11.78 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 57.0 63.6247240618 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.