The article is about the uses of massive storied buildings found in the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. Even though there are three competing theories explaining what were these buildings used for, there is no universally agreed theory.With no exception of professor, who feels none of these theories explain the uses of the buildings accurately. The professor refutes all the theories in the following way.
Firstly, on the outside those buildings may appear to be residential, but the way it is built inside casts serious doubts on whether these buildings were used for residential purposes. Despite the fact that the housing capacity of these building suggests that it is capable of providing shelter to hundreds of families, it is evident from the research that there were only few fire places. Back in those days, fire places were required for carrying out some of the basic tasks like cooking. The theory, however, fails to notice these observations and claims that these buildings were similar to "apartment buildings" where many people used to live in for centuries.
Secondly, the excavations haven't been able to uncover any sort of spilled grains. In fact, even the large containers that may be used to store these maize grains weren't discovered. Furthermore, the professor directly questions the second theory by asking "Why aren't there are any spilled grains or big container?" rhetorically. Nonetheless, the second theory claims that these buildings would have been used as storage place for maize grains as these grains would be stored for longer period without spoiling.
Finally, the discovery of some additional things along with mound of broken pots would pose questions to these theory. In addition to the mound of broken pots, large quantities of building materials which includes heap of trash containing left overs of construction materials were discovered as well. Additionally, the professor guesses that broken pots which were found were the left overs from the construction workers who may have used those pots for some reasons. Nevertheless, the third theory failing to account for the discovery of additional materials with broken pots, claims that the buildings might have been used as ceremonial centres.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 248, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: With
..., there is no universally agreed theory.With no exception of professor, who feels no...
^^^^
Line 3, column 454, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...e places were required for carrying out some of the basic tasks like cooking. The theory, h...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 27, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: haven't
...centuries. Secondly, the excavations havent been able to uncover any sort of spille...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 163, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...may be used to store these maize grains werent discovered. Furthermore, the professor ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 266, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...s the second theory by asking 'Why arent there are any spilled grains or big con...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 106, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this theory' or 'these theories'?
Suggestion: this theory; these theories
... of broken pots would pose questions to these theory. In addition to the mound of broken pot...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, third, well, in addition, in fact, sort of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 10.4613686534 201% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 30.3222958057 158% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1917.0 1373.03311258 140% => OK
No of words: 358.0 270.72406181 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35474860335 5.08290768461 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34981470047 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79267730576 2.5805825403 108% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.527932960894 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 580.5 419.366225166 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.7538831539 49.2860985944 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.8 110.228320801 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8666666667 21.698381199 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.86666666667 7.06452816374 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 4.19205298013 143% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.312129258291 0.272083759551 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109457034224 0.0996497079465 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545586743898 0.0662205650399 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191942512404 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.010405479896 0.0443174109184 23% => 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: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 53.8541721854 89% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.0289183223 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.2367328918 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.42419426049 106% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 63.6247240618 148% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.