Undoubtedly, old buidling structures has always been a controversial topic among archaeologists. More specifically the writer puts forth on some ideas about how these great houses were used. However the professor points out that there are some serious flaws with the writer's claim. He more or less addresses the problem with each point made in the reading.
First, the writer claims that the Chaco structures were purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. But the professor refutes with this idea and says that there were not enough fire places for that amount of people to satisfy their cooking needs. He explains that there were only 10 fire places at one of the largest of these great houses which shows that these houses were not residental.
Secondly, the reading states that one of the theories contends that the Chaco structures were used to store food supplies. Author points out that the size of the great houses would make them very suitable for storing grain maize. The professor, not surprisingly though, believes that ther are not enough evidence to prove such theory. Excavations of houses does not show any trace of containers or spilled maize in great houses.
Finally, the author wraps up the topic by mentioning third theory, which proposes that houses were used as ceremonial centers. Excavations of the mound revealed deposits containing a surprisingly large number of broken pots, which can be an evidence that people gathered at Pueblo Alto for special ceremonies. Then again, the professor stays on the other side of the argument and says that, those mounds contains alot of other things like rocks and construction materials beside broken pots. He thinks they all can be trash and were thrown away as usless stuff.
In conclusion, the author and the professor obviously holds opposing views about use of great houses.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 192, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...about how these great houses were used. However the professor points out that there are...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, in conclusion, more or less
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 : 8.0 7.30242825607 110% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 12.0772626932 132% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1565.0 1373.03311258 114% => OK
No of words: 305.0 270.72406181 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13114754098 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17902490978 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48675934713 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 145.348785872 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.596721311475 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 464.4 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.4593495776 49.2860985944 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.8125 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0625 21.698381199 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06452816374 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141102261462 0.272083759551 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0460321421747 0.0996497079465 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0367206625034 0.0662205650399 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0759430706474 0.162205337803 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0446783567376 0.0443174109184 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => 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: 12.47 12.2367328918 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 86.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 26.0 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.