TPO-05 - Integrated Writing Task As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their "great houses," massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand th

The passage explains about three possible theories to represent the purposes of great houses in Chaco canyon settlements in North Mexico. In contrast to passage, the lecture casts doubt on the theories providing ample amount of reasons against them.

Firstly, the passage claims that great houses were purely residential as hundreds of people could reside there. The passage compares those houses with modern days large apartment buildings. But it fails to exhume interior of the houses. However, the lecture does a notable job elaborating the fact that if hundreds of people were living in those houses, there should had been numerous fireplaces for daily cooking of those people. Whereas, from the research, it had been seen that only few fireplaces were there and there were not many rooms for people to live there. Thus, the primary purpose of the houses to be residential is ruled out.

Secondly, it is said that the houses were aimed as the structures to store the food supply, mainly crop grain maize for long time without spoilage so that it could be later used as long lasting supply of food. This purpose of houses has failed as not much maize grains were uncovered and there were not satisfactory number of maize containers too. Hence, the second theory proved to be fell flat.

Thirdly, the passage gives the theory of great houses being built as ceremonial centers. It also provides an evidence given by one of the archaeologist, Pueblo Alto. It is said that after the excavations, large number of broken pots were found there. This could suggest that people might have gathered for special ceremonies where they ate and discarded pots used for cooking and serving. But, unfortunately, this theory was contradicted by the lecture. According to the lecture, it is clarified after excavations, not only pots but large quantities of construction materials such as sand, stones etc were also found in the site. This could be trash heap of building materials. Talking about pots, these could be leftover of the workers in the site.

Votes
Average: 7.1 (1 vote)
Essay Categories

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, thus, whereas, in contrast, such as, talking about, in contrast to

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 10.4613686534 210% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 5.04856512141 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 30.3222958057 139% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1709.0 1373.03311258 124% => OK
No of words: 340.0 270.72406181 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02647058824 5.08290768461 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48345912069 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 145.348785872 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.555882352941 0.540411800872 103% => OK
syllable_count: 524.7 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 3.25607064018 307% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => 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: 19.0 13.0662251656 145% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.1112514987 49.2860985944 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.9473684211 110.228320801 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8947368421 21.698381199 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.94736842105 7.06452816374 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.27373068433 234% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.45125033204 0.272083759551 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116848291482 0.0996497079465 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.067941155515 0.0662205650399 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.243234969846 0.162205337803 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0529739430216 0.0443174109184 120% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 13.3589403974 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 53.8541721854 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 11.0289183223 79% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.2367328918 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 63.6247240618 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.

Rates: 71.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.5 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.