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 reading is on how the settlers of Chako Canyon used their house. It provides three supportive evidence on that claims. The lecturer refutes the claims. He eviscerates each of the reason by providing explanations.
First, the reading states the house had a residential uses for a large number of peoples at a time. However, the professor denies. He says, although from outside it seems an apartment house but from inside it is failed to hold that criteria because there was a few only 10 fire places. These less number of fire places was not able to support a huge number of people.
Second, the passage claims that the structure of the house were used to store food supplies for a long period of time. But, the lecturer refutes this theory. He discloses that after excavation, there was not possible to found any traces of maize, container. Moreover, no spill of these food stuff was found.
Third, the given excerpt assumes the house were used for ceremonial purpose. The point is quite problematic with the professors position. He represents, if the house were being used only for ceremony then how it is possible to found sand, stones and also regular trashes.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 55, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'use'?
Suggestion: use
...ding states the house had a residential uses for a large number of peoples at a time...
^^^^
Line 3, column 64, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...es the house had a residential uses for a large number of peoples at a time. However, the profess...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 104, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... used to store food supplies for a long period of time. But, the lecturer refutes this theory....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 281, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this food' or 'these foods'?
Suggestion: this food; these foods
...maize, container. Moreover, no spill of these food stuff was found. Third, the given ex...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, then, third
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 7.30242825607 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 30.3222958057 79% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 978.0 1373.03311258 71% => OK
No of words: 201.0 270.72406181 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86567164179 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.76529505866 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48040762169 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 123.0 145.348785872 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.611940298507 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 306.0 419.366225166 73% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 2.5761589404 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 21.2450331126 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.0585942907 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 65.2 110.228320801 59% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 13.4 21.698381199 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.26666666667 7.06452816374 60% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.103163428155 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0313607609466 0.0996497079465 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0382187789498 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0628135327611 0.162205337803 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0289628539216 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 8.2 13.3589403974 61% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 53.8541721854 124% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 11.0289183223 65% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.37 12.2367328918 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 48.0 63.6247240618 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.7273730684 51% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.2 10.498013245 69% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 68.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 20.5 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.