TPO 5
The reading passage claims that Chaco Canyon in New Mexico is notable because of its impressive houses including large stones, rooms and so forth. In fact, there are several reasons to show how these houses were used and erected. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas dubious and presents some impeccable evidence to refute them all.
First, the author contends that the main purpose of the structures was residential because they are like American houses and a great design and architecture. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that although outside of the buildings were like American apartments, the inside of the buildings is totally different. Indeed, if people used them for the living, there would be majorities of fireplaces for cooking and many rooms as well. So, this could not be a convincing idea.
Furthermore, the author asserts that Chaco people used their structures in order to store maize, which could remain for a long time without spoiling and corruption. On the contrary, the professor embraces the idea that although store maize may sound plausible at first, excavation did not represent any evidence of maize because there were no maize or container in that place.
Finally, as set forth by the author excavation of mound and different pieces of pots show that these houses were used for the ceremonial center. Indeed, people served meals and then throw the pots away. In contrast, the speaker dismisses this issue due to the fact that this place contains various materials despite pots. In fact, there were many different materials like sand, bricks and so forth in large quantity that can be found in the mound as a trash when houses were built.
To put it in a nutshell, there are many pieces of evidence having been ignored by the author while the presence of which could add to the logic of the passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 343, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...rials despite pots. In fact, there were many different materials like sand, bricks and so fort...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, well, while, in contrast, in fact, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 12.0772626932 99% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 5.01324503311 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1545.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 311.0 270.72406181 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96784565916 5.08290768461 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43489263486 2.5805825403 94% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 145.348785872 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546623794212 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 478.8 419.366225166 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 2.5761589404 194% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.875564916 49.2860985944 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.357142857 110.228320801 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2142857143 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.5 7.06452816374 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => 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: 0.0 0.272083759551 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0996497079465 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0662205650399 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.162205337803 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0443174109184 0% => 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: 13.1 13.3589403974 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.42419426049 96% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 63.6247240618 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.