Early twentieth century Chaco construction purpose. the professor refutes the reading claims mentioned in the passage.
The lecture and the lecture both discuss the purpose of the early Chanco canyon huge buildings. While the reading claims that, although the archaeologist couldn't conclude; they proposed several theories to determine their purpose, the lecture refutes this, saying that unfortunately, none of the theories are convincing.
First of all, the reading claims that the Chaco constructions are for residential purpose because it accommodates large families. However, the professor argues that although the outside looks like a residential building; interior cast doubt because there are a few fireplaces; those are not enough for a hundred families. Furthermore, the lecture counters that if it is for a residential purpose for a large number of families, it definitely needs more fireplaces to prepare food, but those rooms contain only a few places. so, it is not for people to live definitely.
In addition, the passage makes the argument that Chaco built large rooms for storage purpose to store and supply maize to people for a long time. The lecture counter this point by saying that there is no fossil record support that those rooms are for storage. According to the professor, Archeologist aren't found any spilled Maize on the floor and not evidence of big containers to store the maize,
Lastly, the reading passage posits that they are used those buildings for ceremonial functions: the archaeologists found a large number of broken pots. The lecture refutes this claim by pointing out that the evidence is not well supported. Moreover, the lecture says that the scientist also found other materials; sand, gravel, construction tools. so, it is like a trash place rather a ceremonial area and the broken pots are the containers for cooking used by construction workers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 155, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...claims that, although the archaeologist couldnt conclude; they proposed several theorie...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 400, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... if it is for a residential purpose for a large number of families, it definitely needs more fire...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 524, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: So
... those rooms contain only a few places. so, it is not for people to live definitel...
^^
Line 3, column 301, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...ccording to the professor, Archeologist arent found any spilled Maize on the floor an...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 122, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ial functions: the archaeologists found a large number of broken pots. The lecture refutes this c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 349, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: So
...ials; sand, gravel, construction tools. so, it is like a trash place rather a cere...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, lastly, look, moreover, so, well, while, in addition, first of all
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 : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1493.0 1373.03311258 109% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23859649123 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77994842859 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 145.348785872 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.529824561404 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 463.5 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.626626964 49.2860985944 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.416666667 110.228320801 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.16666666667 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0827537011259 0.272083759551 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0338963188454 0.0996497079465 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396041730743 0.0662205650399 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0496745085075 0.162205337803 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0154318670526 0.0443174109184 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.3589403974 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.