The reading and the lecture discuss how the settlements of Chaco Canyon were formed, besides, these were well-known for their great houses. The author gives the current three most competing theories. The professor brings into question the theories pointed in the article by showing why those are not convincing.
The first author’s theory is that Chaco structures were only residential, in fact, it is mentioned that Chaco’s houses were similar to the earlier version of southwest apartment buildings at Taos. However, the professor argues that Chaco’s shelters inside, different from apartments from Taos, did not have many fireplaces. Those large houses had just 10 fireplaces for around 100 rooms, so, it is not true that those were residential.
The second author’s theory states that Chaco’s big buildings stored food supplies such as maize (one of the main crops) which is believed to last for long periods without being spoiled. The lecturer rebuts this argument by pointing out that this theory is not asserting because there are no traces of maize trees or even some remains of these. Therefore, There were not any big containers.
Finally, the third author’s theory contends that these structures were ceremonial centers. Near to Pueblo Alto, researchers have found out massive mound formed by a pile of material which reveals that there were deposits of broken pots. The professor, on the other hand, posits that It is true that there were some broken pots, but there were no sand or stone remains which are the essential material for the construction of the ceremonial center.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 201, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... current three most competing theories. The professor brings into question the theo...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...howing why those are not convincing. The first author's theory is that Chac...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, finally, first, however, if, second, so, therefore, third, well, even so, in fact, such as, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 0.0 5.04856512141 0% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 22.412803532 98% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1370.0 1373.03311258 100% => OK
No of words: 258.0 270.72406181 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31007751938 5.08290768461 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00778971557 4.04702891845 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69014587013 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612403100775 0.540411800872 113% => OK
syllable_count: 403.2 419.366225166 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => 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: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.0285867594 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.166666667 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.25 7.06452816374 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.40432424699 0.272083759551 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136672527801 0.0996497079465 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0816174264341 0.0662205650399 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.236938261544 0.162205337803 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0288821096514 0.0443174109184 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 53.8541721854 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.2367328918 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.02 8.42419426049 107% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 63.6247240618 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 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.