The author describes that there are three main theories to specify how the great houses of Chaco Canyon settlements were utilized. On the other hand, the speaker states that unfortunately none of the arguments about the application of these massive stone buildings are convincing and refutes each of the author's reasons with rational grounds.
First of all, the writer states that the Chaco structures were merely residential, and hundreds of people lived there. Nevertheless, the professor points out that although outside of these buildings looked like Native American houses, inside of them did not indicate that hundreds of people lived there. To be more specific, if a large number of people had lived there, these houses should have had many fireplaces for daily cooking, yet few of them were observed in these houses. Furthermore, these large buildings should have enough rooms to provide an appropriate place for families to live, but there were just ten rooms which there were not enough for hundreds of people.
Second, according to the reading, the Chaco structures were utilized as a good place for the sake of storing food suppliers. Conversely, the speaker brings up the idea that there are some traces which uncover the fact that maize did not store in these great houses. As a matter of fact, if maize had been stored in these big containers, more split of maize should have been thrown there.
Third, the author expresses that the Chaco houses were used as ceremonial centers. However, the speaker posits that lots of materials were found through the excavations of the mound, such as building materials, construction tools, sand, and stone. To be more specific, these large structures can be used as trash container for construction materials that were thrown away. Besides, the broken pots that were found there might have been for the construction workers who shed them after their meal.
Therefore, the points mentioned in the reading do not make sense.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 328, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...le lived there. To be more specific, if a large number of people had lived there, these houses sh...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, look, nevertheless, second, so, therefore, third, such as, as a matter of fact, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 30.3222958057 119% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1655.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 324.0 270.72406181 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10802469136 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50108001363 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530864197531 0.540411800872 98% => OK
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: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1856025594 49.2860985944 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.214285714 110.228320801 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1428571429 21.698381199 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 12.1428571429 7.06452816374 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 4.33554083885 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.403320627971 0.272083759551 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.14209199008 0.0996497079465 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0717782111622 0.0662205650399 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190621068669 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.098177177558 0.0443174109184 222% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 63.6247240618 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 10.7273730684 131% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
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.