The reading is about the possible explanation of "great houses" in Southwestern America. The lecturer casts doubts on all these explanation for being unconvincing. Therefore, he challenges the claims made by the author.
To begin with, the article mentions that the great houses were for residential function with housing hundreds of people, and it is similar with the structure which people had have lived for centuries. This argument is opposed by the lecture with the evidence that there are few fireplaces in the building. To be more specific, hundreds of residents should be served with food on a daily basis, and it was inevitably for each family unit to use fireplaces. However, the amount of fireplaces were little that it can be concluded that the Chaco structures were not for accommodating human.
Secondly, the statement of author argues that the Chaco structures were for crops storaging purpose according to the size and location. The lecturer rebuts this by bringing up the point that there was no evidence of any maize container can be traced. As a result, he doubts the theory's reasoning.
Lastly, the author posits that the houses were functioned as ceremonial centers since there were abundant broken pots found as remains inside somewhere nearby the houses; hence can be interpreted as a sign of gathering activity. In contrast, the speaker stresses that there are much more than broken pots were found. Other building materials like sand and stones were also revealed as remains. The lecturer is of the position that these materials are all regular trash that were not used up then abandoned.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 133, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this explanation' or 'these explanations'?
Suggestion: this explanation; these explanations
...erica. The lecturer casts doubts on all these explanation for being unconvincing. Therefore, he c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 176, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...lar with the structure which people had have lived for centuries. This argument is o...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in contrast, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.01324503311 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1368.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 265.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16226415094 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03470204552 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71916578835 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.581132075472 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 430.2 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.771159996 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.7142857143 110.228320801 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9285714286 21.698381199 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.35714285714 7.06452816374 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155721024969 0.272083759551 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0494339503808 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400411806356 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0875611179347 0.162205337803 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0292510209692 0.0443174109184 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 53.8541721854 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 63.6247240618 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.