Because of its remote location, only a few species of plants and animals thrived on Easter Island, and the water surrounding it contained very few fish. Nevertheless, beginning with extremely limited resources on an isolated island, the native people achieved a very advanced culture, as evidenced by the gigantic monolithic human figures that line the coasts, as well as by other artifacts. The complete collapse of this civilization is still a mystery, but several theories have been put forward.
One theory suggests that the natives of Easter Island cut down large palm forests to clear land for agricultural purposes, fuel for heating and cooking, construction material for pole and thatch houses, and canoes for transportation. In addition, hundreds of ahu, or large stone monuments, were constructed and moved to the coast on rollers made of tree trunks. Assuming that the trees could regenerate quickly enough to sustain the environment, they continued the deforestation, which, in turn, caused serious erosion.
Another theory presents a very different explanation for the decline in the population. Since there were few predators on the island, and an abundance of food, it is thought that rats may have hidden in the canoes of the earliest settlers. When the native people cut and burned trees, the rats prevented regrowth by eating the fresh shoots before they could grow into large plants. With little food and no wood to build canoes to escape, the people perished.
A third theory contends that the population was decimated by a war between short-eared and long-eared people on the island. According to oral history, a plot by the long-eared people to kill the short-eared people was discovered and the short-eared people struck first, driving the long-eared people to a ditch where they were killed and burned.
The article states that Eastern Island civilization had been destroyed and provides three main reasons of support. However, the professor explains that there are some flaws in these ideas and refutes each of the author's reasons. In the following, the statements of the lecturer will be discussed.
First, the reading claims that there was a huge deforestation due to cutting down massive forests which led to tremendous erosion and extinction of the native citizens. The professor refutes this point by saying that the natives tried to replace cut trees with grass. He states that this action hindered the process of erosion.
Second, the article posits that rats consumed almost all nutrients in that location. On the other hand, even though the professor agrees that rats are harmful for the eco-system, the natives used this animals as their food. According to the professor's statement, bones of rats, as well as chickens, were found in the place which proves this idea.
Third, the essay concedes that, a deadly battle between short-eared and long-eared people decreased their population enormously, but the professor opposes this idea by explaining that the war was one year earlier that that massive decrease in their population. Accordingly, he states that the fight of immigration of Spanish people from Peru (with about 3000 people) which led to pershiment of two-third of the population was in 1681 one year after the great war.
In conclusion, as the lecturer claims, the answer to this convoluted mistery is still vague owing to the fact that none of the abovementioned ideas are not solid proofs of the disappearance of the native population.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-19 | Yash Mehta | 84 | view |
- in twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today 73
- fake coin or real coin 80
- movies have more negative effect on how young people behave than positive effects 83
- TPO 37 independent agree or not because people are busy doing so many different thins they do very few things very well 70
- agnostids behaviors 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 197, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ul for the eco-system, the natives used this animals as their food. According to the...
^^^^
Line 9, column 242, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...animals as their food. According to the professors statement, bones of rats, as well as ch...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, first, however, second, so, still, third, well, in conclusion, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 5.04856512141 20% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 12.0772626932 141% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 22.412803532 116% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 5.01324503311 239% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1405.0 1373.03311258 102% => OK
No of words: 269.0 270.72406181 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22304832714 5.08290768461 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0498419064 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68077428485 2.5805825403 104% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 145.348785872 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.594795539033 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 414.9 419.366225166 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.7111100773 49.2860985944 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.083333333 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4166666667 21.698381199 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.16666666667 7.06452816374 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.0689545244101 0.272083759551 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0238283464797 0.0996497079465 24% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0208298720458 0.0662205650399 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0350761853654 0.162205337803 22% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0079792853316 0.0443174109184 18% => 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: 14.4 13.3589403974 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.2367328918 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.42419426049 108% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 63.6247240618 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => 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.