The reading passage discusses an interesting topic about an archeologist site in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, where a settlement of serveral buildings where discovered. The article provides three possiblities of the used of these buildings for the native american habitats. However, the lecture casts doubts on each of the suggestions done by the reading passages.
First, the reading passage sustains that the Chaco buildings functioned had a residential used based in the similarity with the Taos' apartment buildings in New Mexico. On the contrary, the lecture argues that if the great houses of Chaco settlement had been the resident of hundred of families, more fire places should be found; instead, only a few fire places were found in the houses.
Secondly, the reading passage explains a second theory about the use of the great house relating them as store houses. Again, the lecture challenges this idea by simply exposing that there was not enough remains of food or crops to confirm that theory. Very few crops remains or containers that could holds big amounts of food supplies were found in the great houses.
Finally, the reading passage explains what another theory claims: theses houses were used as ceremonial centres because of the many discarded pots founded inside by archaeologists. On the opposite, the lecture argues that the presence of other remains, like construction material, suggest that the houses could be used as construction stores, and the broken pieces of pots are just the rest of trash remained by the lunch of the workers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 302, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[2]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'hold'
Suggestion: hold
... crops remains or containers that could holds big amounts of food supplies were found...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 10.4613686534 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 22.412803532 45% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 30.3222958057 112% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1314.0 1373.03311258 96% => OK
No of words: 253.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19367588933 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98822939669 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6372138646 2.5805825403 102% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 145.348785872 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.561264822134 0.540411800872 104% => OK
syllable_count: 400.5 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.3949402222 49.2860985944 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.4 110.228320801 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.2 7.06452816374 88% => 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 : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284057623963 0.272083759551 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105538296078 0.0996497079465 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0491362471235 0.0662205650399 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163742469889 0.162205337803 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0367892363745 0.0443174109184 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 53.8541721854 86% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 11.0289183223 118% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.2367328918 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 10.7273730684 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.