Use of buildings of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico
The reading and the writing are about the use of buildings of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. More specifically, in regard to passages, the author puts forth the idea that buildings are used for residential, storage, or ceremonial functions, and supports his position by providing three arguments. However, the speaker was quick enough to point out that there are some serious flaws with the points made by author, and address, in detail, the trouble with each point in the reading text.
To begin with, the author mentions that buildings are used for residential purposes with home for hundreds of people. Further, he adds that building looked like large apartments which can house many people. Nevertheless, the speaker contradicts this argument by pointing out that if hundred of people have lived in those buildings than there need to be fireplaces in that buildings which were used for cooking. Additionally, he says that there were just ten fireplaces, which were few for people living in hundreds of rooms.
Secondly, the author claims that these huge structures were used for storing food. Next, he explains that maize which is a long-lasting crop can be stored easily which can result in supplies of food for longer period of time. Yet, the speaker challenges the claim by revealing that there were no traces of spilled maize or remains for large containers used to store maize were found during excavations.
Finally, the author wraps up his argument by positing that these building were used as ceremonial centers. Moreover, in the article, he states that there huge deposits were remains of large pots found during excavations which might have resulted as discarded pots after ceremonial functions. Not Surprisingly, in contrast to author's argument, the speaker says that in addition to discarded pots there were other building materials such as sand, stone which were also part of those huge heaps. He further elaborates it by saying that these huge heaps were from materials left out after building were built, and pots might be trash from construction worker's left overs.
To sum up, the author and the lecturer has conflicting views regarding the use of building of Chaco Canyon. It is clear that they will have trouble coming to a common ground on this.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-13 | JohnSmith96 | 80 | view |
- Measures to control spread of cane toad in Australia 73
- Driverless cars 80
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? When people solve problems as a group, they come up with better solutions that if they were to try to solve the problem individually. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Most advertisements makes product seem much better than they really are Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 3
- Is to assemble group of people into a team best way to approach a new project 81
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 284, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a hundred'.
Suggestion: a hundred
...s this argument by pointing out that if hundred of people have lived in those buildings...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 211, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...n result in supplies of food for longer period of time. Yet, the speaker challenges the claim ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, in addition, in contrast, such as, in contrast to, in regard to, to begin with, to sum up
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 12.0772626932 182% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 22.412803532 143% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 30.3222958057 181% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1912.0 1373.03311258 139% => OK
No of words: 375.0 270.72406181 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09866666667 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.04702891845 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55214907262 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 145.348785872 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525333333333 0.540411800872 97% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 419.366225166 135% => 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: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.51434878587 264% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
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: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.6743622747 49.2860985944 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.5 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4375 21.698381199 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.25 7.06452816374 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.244783406836 0.272083759551 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111449338922 0.0996497079465 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.175074311989 0.0662205650399 264% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15625805912 0.162205337803 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0955616656157 0.0443174109184 216% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.3589403974 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 63.6247240618 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.2008830022 125% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 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.