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,” mas- sive 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 inter- preted 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 reading and lecture discusses about the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest which were known for their great houses, massive stone buildings with large number of rooms and often 3-4 stories high. The reading supports the claim that how these buildings were used with three mutual exclusive theories. However, the lecture contrasts the reading passage.
First of all, the author of the reading passage claims that the buildings were used for pure residential purpose with each house having capacity to reside hundreds of people. However, the lecture contends that only around 10 fire places - for cooking - were seen, while the house can hold hundreds of people. So, it is unlikely that the primary functions of these buildings were residential purpose.
Secondly, the text asserts that the buildings were used as a food storage facility, especially grain maize. However, the lecture argues that no maize containers had recovered from buildings, which reduces the persuasiveness of the theory. Furthermore, no spillage or remains of maize gran were found on the floor.
Finally, the reading suggest that the building was used for ceremonial centers, where the festive meals were served. The discarded pots were identified in which the meal was served. However, the lecture rejects this theory as untrue as many other materials including building materials, such as sands and construction tools were also identified in the buildings. Furthermore, the pots may be left from the meal by construction workers.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, while, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 30.3222958057 76% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1308.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 243.0 270.72406181 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38271604938 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.94822203886 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59321512439 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.600823045267 0.540411800872 111% => OK
syllable_count: 387.9 419.366225166 92% => 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: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => 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: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.3305052956 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.615384615 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6923076923 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.92307692308 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => 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: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.251961362338 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.079780852054 0.0996497079465 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10041537286 0.0662205650399 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147402856829 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101741111155 0.0443174109184 230% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
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: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 63.6247240618 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.