tpo5
The text and lecturer offer two opposing views on the accuracy of the hypothesis which illustrated the possible usage of "great houses". While the reading passage named utilities such as the residential, place for food storage, and ceremonial center for these houses, the professor counters these specific points and presents some clues to call into the question for the information in the text.
First of all, he professor refutes the surmise of residential usage for these massive buildings which in the reading part is named as one of the possible utility of these buildings. As it mentioned in the passage these huge constructions are so identical to the "apartment building" at Taos, New Mexico, in which lots of people currently live. The lecturer states that although it is similar to the current building, there are not sufficient fireplaces to give adherence to this theory. Inasmuch as all family requires a unique fireplace for its cooking and if the building is responsible for 1000 families there should be 1000 fireplaces in the building. However, based on archaeologists' examination, there are solely ten fireplaces which rebut the validity of this surmise.
Next, the passage mentions the food store option as one of the logical usages. Since one of the fundamental crops of the Chaco people was the grain maize and it is long-lasting and requires an extended area for its storage. The lecturer based on some evidence doubts the truth of the claim. As he states, there is no relic of tree maize or maize containers. Besides, there should be the empty room not a space with the various separated chambers. Thus, these could not be used as a store.
Finally, the professor argues that these buildings had been used for ceremonial activities. Meanwhile, the passage presumes that as there are lots broken pots, there were used for their ceremonial feasts. Based on the professor's evidence, there are vestiges of other substances such as sand, building materials, and stone. All of these materials illustrate this place is their garbage on which they left their regular building trashes and the pots were one of those trashes left over for in this duration.
The professor effectively challenges the claim made in the article.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-03 | YasamanEsml | 76 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 80 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 70 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 70 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | Hrushikesh_Vaddoriya | 70 | view |
- The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend."Of the two leading real estate firms in our town — Adams Realty and Fitch Realty — Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of w 82
- tpo52 3
- 1.In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the stateme 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following the statement Being creative rather than planning carefully helps people come up with the best solution a problem 98
- tpo 21.1 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 673, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'archaeologists'' or 'archaeologist's'?
Suggestion: archaeologists'; archaeologist's
...aces in the building. However, based on archaeologists examination, there are solely ten firep...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 69, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...allenges the claim made in the article.
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'such as', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.26354679803 0.261695866417 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.125615763547 0.158904122519 79% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0788177339901 0.0723426182421 109% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0295566502463 0.0435111971325 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0270935960591 0.0277247811725 98% => OK
Prepositions: 0.142857142857 0.128828473217 111% => OK
Participles: 0.0270935960591 0.0370669169778 73% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67793189739 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.012315270936 0.0208969081088 59% => OK
Particles: 0.00246305418719 0.00154638098197 159% => OK
Determiners: 0.147783251232 0.128158765124 115% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00738916256158 0.0158828679856 47% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.012315270936 0.0114777025283 107% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2248.0 1645.83664459 137% => OK
No of words: 369.0 271.125827815 136% => OK
Chars per words: 6.09214092141 6.08160592843 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.04852973271 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.336043360434 0.374372842146 90% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.289972899729 0.287516216867 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.219512195122 0.187439937562 117% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.130081300813 0.113142543107 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67793189739 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 145.348785872 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523035230352 0.539623497131 97% => OK
Word variations: 56.811224851 53.8517498576 105% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0529801325 138% => OK
Sentence length: 20.5 21.7502111507 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4307008828 49.3711431718 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.888888889 132.220823453 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 21.7502111507 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.611111111111 0.878197800319 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.39072847682 59% => OK
Readability: 49.4972899729 50.5018328374 98% => OK
Elegance: 2.37837837838 1.90840788429 125% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.549887131256 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.137682017429 0.142949733639 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0717900073679 0.0787303798458 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.574933896222 0.631733273073 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.181069351213 0.139662658121 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.266732575781 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.103435571967 0% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.38084482174 0.414875509568 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.128264704047 0.0530846634433 242% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.40443939384 0% => The content is off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0528353158467 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.26048565121 211% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 3.49668874172 143% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 3.62251655629 83% => OK
Neutral topic words: 8.0 3.1766004415 252% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 10.2958057395 155% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Less content wanted. Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.