The reading passage and the lecture both discuss the "great houses"- the massive ancient building structures in American southwest. The reading article theorizes the three possible usages of the structures, the lecture refutes the claim, by saying that there is no enough evidence to accept the claim.
Firstly, the reading article claims the "great houses" were used as residential structures. The size of the house could have easily hosted more than hundreds of people and often it was 3-4 stories high. Moreover, the article indicates the similarity between "apartment buildings" in Taos, New Mexico. But, the lecture counters this point by stating even though outside look like residential buildings but the inside of those structures doesn't support the claim. Lack of fireplaces for cooking to house multiple people casts the doubt.
Next, the reading passage makes the argument that "great houses" were used as food storage facilities. Large size rooms were suitable for storing maize with minimum the chances of spoilage. The lecture argues that this claim is proven to be unsupported by absence of maize or maize containers during excavation.
Lastly, the reading article argues that the massive structures were used as ceremonial sites. Excavation at Pueblo Alto unraveled large number of broken pots. People discarded those pots after the festival meals. The lecture refutes this theory by pointing out the mismatch with the presence of construction materials along with broken pots . Moreover, the lecture says the site was used as dumping station for construction material and those pots were used by construction workers for their meals. In conclusion, the lecture refutes all three theories presented in the reading article.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 457, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ings but the inside of those structures doesnt support the claim. Lack of fireplaces f...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 341, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ruction materials along with broken pots . Moreover, the lecture says the site was...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, lastly, look, moreover, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 12.0772626932 33% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 22.412803532 54% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1516.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 271.0 270.72406181 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.59409594096 5.08290768461 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.05734859645 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77711545353 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 145.348785872 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568265682657 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 459.9 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 3.25607064018 0% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 21.2450331126 75% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.3035283416 49.2860985944 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.75 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.9375 21.698381199 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.875 7.06452816374 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 4.45695364238 179% => 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: 0.270459056211 0.272083759551 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0965111202945 0.0996497079465 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0458601840503 0.0662205650399 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16778164151 0.162205337803 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0458384521379 0.0443174109184 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 53.8541721854 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.85 12.2367328918 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 10.498013245 80% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => 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.