The settlements of New Mexico s Chaco Canyon in American Southwest were notable for their massive stone buildings known as great houses containing hundreds of rooms and standing three or four stories high since the twelfth century A D Archeologists have b

Essay topics:

The settlements of New Mexico's Chaco Canyon in American Southwest were notable for their massive stone buildings, known as great houses, containing hundreds of rooms and standing three or four stories high since the twelfth century A.D. Archeologists have been trying to determine how these buildings were used but still have not come up with a universally agreed-upon explanation. However, there are three competing theories that provide plausible explanations.

One theory states the Chaco structures were residential and held hundreds of people. Supporters of this theory look too similar architectural structures in more recent Southwest societies. One structure, in particular, that is strikingly similar to the Chaco buildings is the apartment building at Taos, New Mexico, which has housed several people of the centuries.

The second theory argues that the Chaco structures were used as food storage facilities. Since one of the main crops of the Chaco people was grain maize, it could be stored for an extended time period without spoiling. The large size of the structures made them ideal for storing large crops of maize.

A third theory proposes the houses were used as ceremonial gathering places. Archeologists discovered a large mound of old material near one house called Pueblo Alto. Further inspection of the mound revealed deposits containing several broken pots. It has been documented in other Native American cultures that during special ceremonies they ate a festive meal and discarded the pots that the meal had been prepared or served with. Because of these documented ceremonies, the finding at Pueblo Alto has been interpreted as evidence that people gathered there for special ceremonies.

The lecture and the reading talk about the functionality of massive stone buildings in New Mexico's Chaco Canyon. While the author of the reading suggests three possible theories for their usage, the lecturer completely denies them with following explanation.

Firstly, the reading states that Chaco structures were residential and supported hundreds of people. The lecturer refutes this claim on the evidence that there were very few fireplaces present in the structure which would not be sufficient to cook a large number of people. There were enough fireplaces to support 10-12 families.

Secondly, the reading claims that Chaco structures were used as food storage facilities. The lecturer contradicts this claim stating that there is insufficient evidence to support this as excavation at these sites gave no traces of maize. If it was used as a storage facility, then there should've been remains of large storage containers at the site.

Finally, another theory proposed in the reading is that the Chaco structures were used for ceremonial gathering as there was evidence of broken pots at the site. The lecturer claims the theory is flawed. His reasoning is based on the fact that along with broken pots, there were other items such as large stones, construction materials, etc which would not be present at a gathering place.

Thus, the lecturer completely disagrees with the theories mentioned in the reading and supports his claim by providing relevant reasoning and evidence as mentioned above

Votes
Average: 6.5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 249, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...e which would not be sufficient to cook a large number of people. There were enough fireplaces to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 289, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: should've
... used as a storage facility, then there shouldve been remains of large storage container...
^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 10.4613686534 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 22.412803532 67% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1277.0 1373.03311258 93% => OK
No of words: 239.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34309623431 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93187294222 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65740778667 2.5805825403 103% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.52719665272 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 394.2 419.366225166 94% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => 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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0185147097 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.416666667 110.228320801 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9166666667 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.06452816374 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => 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: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117129677171 0.272083759551 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0532856647949 0.0996497079465 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0629795276553 0.0662205650399 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.070494579072 0.162205337803 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0645402680533 0.0443174109184 146% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 53.8541721854 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.42419426049 100% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 65.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 19.5 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.