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 were not 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 were not the food storage at all.
Finally, the passage claims that they were used as a ceremonial centers as many broken pots were found. Nevertheless, like the two suggestions before the lecturer proclaims that this recommendation does not hold water because there was many other building materials as well. He goes on to further maintaining that they could be used as a regular trash bin and the broken pots were just regular trash. So, they are not good evidence to buttress the claim that the author of the passage have made.
In conclusion, the writer and the lecturer have different perspective on how the Chaco structures were actually used.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, well, 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 : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 12.0772626932 83% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1477.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 302.0 270.72406181 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89072847682 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1687104957 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51949331924 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 145.348785872 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496688741722 0.540411800872 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 452.7 419.366225166 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => 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: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.9167512274 49.2860985944 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.4666666667 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1333333333 21.698381199 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.26666666667 7.06452816374 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.165051593085 0.272083759551 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.059338189473 0.0996497079465 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0583415566977 0.0662205650399 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100234026339 0.162205337803 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0638776724681 0.0443174109184 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.42419426049 92% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.