The writer presents three competitive theories for the function of massive stone buildings found in Chaco Canyon. The speaker, on the other hand, characterizes these arguments as unconvincing.
First, according to the reading passage, the Chaco structures could have been used for housing residents in large number since they look like the well-known apartment buildings in nearby area. However, the professor points to the fact that the interior did not contain enough fireplace for hundreds of people, making him doubt that the Chaco houses were for residential purpose. More specifically, there were only a few fireplaces found in the largest Chaco building, suggesting it could have housed around 10 families, thus can't be considered an apartment building.
Second, although the theory that the Chaco structures were built for the purpose of storing food supplies, especially grain maize, appears plausible, the professor asserts that this theory is not well-supported. He cites an excavation that reports almost no trace of spilled grain maize or remains of maize containers were discovered on the site. Therefore, it is very unlikely the supplies of maize were stored in these massive houses either.
Third, it is proposed in the article that the Chaco buildings were used for ceremonial purposes. The writer highlights a finding in which the mound located near the structures contained broken pots that could have been used for serving festive meals. On the contrary, the speaker correctly notes that there were also other materials found in the mound besides broken pots. Much of these old materials were trash of construction materials, indicating the pots could have only been left-over meals of construction workers. Thus, the theory of ceremonial buildings can be ruled out.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 526, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ld have housed around 10 families, thus cant be considered an apartment building. ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, however, if, look, second, so, therefore, third, thus, well, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 7.30242825607 14% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1516.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 280.0 270.72406181 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41428571429 5.08290768461 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.09062348924 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71988145 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.582142857143 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 452.7 419.366225166 108% => 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: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.0587481812 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.615384615 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5384615385 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 7.06452816374 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 14.8 13.3589403974 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.42419426049 110% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.2008830022 134% => 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.