You have 20 minutes to plan and write your response. Your response will
be judged on the basis of the quality of your writing and on how well your response
presents the points in the lecture and their relationship to the reading passage.
Typically, an effective response will be 150 to 225 words.
The reading and the lecture are both about the Chaco Canyon settlements that were known for their “great houses”. While the author of the article argues that there are three possible reasons for which these buildings might be used, the lecturer disputes the argument made in the article. His position is that the theories do not clearly explain the use of the “great houses”.
According to the reading, one of the theories is that the Chaco structure was purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. The article mentions that this has evidence seen in architecture of the more recent Southwest societies, in particular the they appear similar to the well known apartment buildings. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He doubts that many lived inside these buildings as there are not enough fireplaces, where the families could cook meals on, inside the buildings.He goes on to state that only 10 fireplaces were present for 10 families to live and rooms that could accommodate more than 100 people.
Secondly, the author suggests that maybe the “great houses” were used for food grain storage, specially maize, which could be stored for longer periods of time. The article notes that as the great houses were big they made for a suitable place to store the food grain supplies. The lecturer, however, asserts that the houses could not have been used to store food grains supplies as after excavations no evidence to support this claim was found. He goes on to say that if they were really used for storing maize then the excavation site should have had remains of the large food grain containers and even scattered maize grains.
Finally, the author puts forth the idea that maybe the great houses were used as ceremonial centers. The author contends this because excavation of the large mound near one of the houses called Pueblo Alto revealed deposits containing a large number of broken pots. In contrast, the lecturer’s stance is that the broken pots cannot fully evidence the site being used for ceremonial purposes. He says that the excavations revealed many other materials along with broken pots such as sand, bricks and even tools that might be used for construction purposes.
To sum up, both the author and the lecturer hold conflicting views about the usage of “great houses” by Chaco civilization.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 256, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'they'?
Suggestion: the; they
...cent Southwest societies, in particular the they appear similar to the well known apartm...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 519, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: He
...uld cook meals on, inside the buildings.He goes on to state that only 10 fireplace...
^^
Line 7, column 236, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...ueblo Alto revealed deposits containing a large number of broken pots. In contrast, the lecturer’...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, in contrast, in particular, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => 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: 1984.0 1373.03311258 144% => OK
No of words: 391.0 270.72406181 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07416879795 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.04702891845 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47994025642 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 145.348785872 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519181585678 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 591.3 419.366225166 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 2.5761589404 233% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.5135319256 49.2860985944 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.0 110.228320801 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4375 21.698381199 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.625 7.06452816374 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => 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: 0.0380369480913 0.272083759551 14% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0152324308014 0.0996497079465 15% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0171661069552 0.0662205650399 26% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0253855688427 0.162205337803 16% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0142630753246 0.0443174109184 32% => 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: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 63.6247240618 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.