Great Houses
The reading and the lecture are both about the settlement called “Great Houses” in New Mexico. According to the writer, there are three theories which claims in what causes these settlements were using for. The professor from the lecture, however, disagrees with this three theories from the writing passage. He casts doubts on the explanations of the writings regards to the theories.
Firstly, according to the author, the first theory shows that these structures could be used for residential reasons. The writer claims that recent civilizations from Southwest were using the same pattern of architecture, therefore the author continues by saying this could be a proof that people were actually living in these structure. The professor, on the other hand, casts doubt on this statement by saying if there would be people living there, the excavations could have find many more ruins of fireplaces. He adds that, these places could not residential. According to the professor, there were only ten fireplaces which were not enough for people.
Secondly, the writing says that these structures could be used for storing foods since the size of the places were quite suitable to hide and store foods. The lecturer, however, challenges this opinion. According to the professor’s statement, this idea from the article is unsupported. He adds that, the recent excavations have not uncovered any findings of food. He also mentions that, if these places used for storing food supplies there would be more remains of food in these places.
Lastly, the author mentions the third theory about the settlement. According to the article, the Great Houses might be used for ceremonial reasons. On the contrary, the professor from the lecture casts doubt on this claim. The professor mentions that findings from the Great Houses not only includes pots but also building materials such as sands, stones. The professor adds that, the place could basically used for trashes of regular stuff.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 479, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'found'.
Suggestion: found
...iving there, the excavations could have find many more ruins of fireplaces. He adds ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 408, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'use'
Suggestion: use
...or adds that, the place could basically used for trashes of regular stuff.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, such as, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 5.04856512141 178% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1674.0 1373.03311258 122% => OK
No of words: 318.0 270.72406181 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2641509434 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22286093782 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57136578432 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 145.348785872 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493710691824 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 487.8 419.366225166 116% => 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: 15.0 8.23620309051 182% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 2.5761589404 272% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.1362386062 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.1052631579 110.228320801 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7368421053 21.698381199 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.42105263158 7.06452816374 105% => 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 : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.111336948082 0.272083759551 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0494292874969 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114827064032 0.0662205650399 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.097600030858 0.162205337803 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104885515431 0.0443174109184 237% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.3589403974 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 53.8541721854 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 11.0289183223 76% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.2367328918 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.42419426049 95% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.