Both reading passage and lecture talk about settlements of New Mexico's Chaco Canyon in the American southwest. The passage gives 3 possible theories of how these buildings could have been used. However, the lecture contradicts all three.
The first theory suggests that the building could have been used for residential purposes. This suggestion is based on supporters' observation that similar architectural structures were found in Southwest societies, residential. However, lecture disputes this because, Even though the buildings' outer structure is similar to residential buildings, there were not enough fireplaces to cook for the number of people the building can host. For instance, there was a place for 100 families, but only 10 places for cooking fire is found.
The second theory suggests that these buildings would have been used for food storage for grain maize. This suggestion is based on the observation that places were large enough to store. However, the lecture-based on excavation results says that there were no maize containers found in the building and no spilled grains, arguing that the building was not used for food storage.
The third theory suggests that the building could have been used for ceremonial gatherings. This suggestion is based on an observation that other native American cultures broke the food container after the ceremony. Broken pots were found in this building, which leads to the suggestion of similar ceremonies occurring in the building. However, lecture disputes with the evidence that there were other materials like sandstone, construction waste, and other trash were found in the building. It suggests these kinds of materials are not necessary for a ceremonial event, and thus, the building could have been just a thrash collecting place.
In conclusion, the passage explains three theories that suggest three probable usages of Chaco Canyon buildings. However, the lecture disputes each of them with evidence against all three.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 120, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'supporters'' or 'supporter's'?
Suggestion: supporters'; supporter's
...l purposes. This suggestion is based on supporters observation that similar architectural ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, second, so, third, thus, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 30.3222958057 92% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1688.0 1373.03311258 123% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48051948052 5.08290768461 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6746941635 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 145.348785872 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493506493506 0.540411800872 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 502.2 419.366225166 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.7389359171 49.2860985944 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2941176471 110.228320801 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1176470588 21.698381199 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.29411764706 7.06452816374 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.195249543711 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0753989479271 0.0996497079465 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0453699484535 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128697791883 0.162205337803 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0331441763589 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
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: 14.21 12.2367328918 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 63.6247240618 108% => 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: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.