As early as the twelfth century A.D., the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico in the American Southwest were notable for their "great houses," massive stone buildings that contain hundreds of rooms and often stand three or four stories high. Archaeologists have been trying to determine how the buildings were used. While there is still no universally agreed upon explanation, there are three competing theories.
One theory holds that the Chaco structures were purely residential, with each housing hundreds of people. Supporters of this theory have interpreted Chaco great houses as earlier versions of the architecture seen in more recent Southwest societies. In particular, the Chaco houses appear strikingly similar to the large, well-known "apartment buildings" at Taos, New Mexico, in which many people have been living for centuries.
A second theory contends that the Chaco structures were used to store food supplies. One of the main crops of the Chaco people was grain maize, which could be stored for long periods of time without spoiling and could serve as a long-lasting supply of food. The supplies of maize had to be stored somewhere, and the size of the great houses would make them very suitable for the purpose.
A third theory proposes that houses were used as ceremonial centers. Close to one house, called Pueblo Alto, archaeologists identified an enormous mound formed by a pile of old material. Excavations of the mound revealed deposits containing a surprisingly large number of broken pots. This finding has been interpreted as evidence that people gathered at Pueblo Alto for special ceremonies. At the ceremonies, they ate festive meals and then discarded the pots in which the meals had been prepared or served. Such ceremonies have been documented for other Native American cultures.
Both the reading and the lecture are about the belonging of the Chaco structures to the certain kind of buildings and about the purpose of those buildings. While the reading proposes three theories based, the lecturer casts doubt on the evidence made in the article. She claims that neither of those theories is strongly supported by the evidence from the article.
Firstly, the reading defines that the structures could be purely residential. The author is confident that the similarity from the outside is enough to conclude that the building was used for the same purpose as the apartment buildings. The lecturer is convincing that those “apartments” look as suitable for living only from the first look and the deep dive inside the structures demonstrates the lack of fireplaces designed for cooking. Based on the above, the professor contradicts the first point of the reading.
Secondly, the reading passage contends that the building could have been used as a grain storage, especially maize, storage of which, in turn, requires considerable size of the storage place. The lecturer disagrees with this point either. By introducing additional evidence, according to which large rooms could not have been used for food supply storage as none of the remains of crops have ever been found on the floor. Therefore, the professor’s point is opposed to that of the reading passage.
Thirdly, the text elaborates on the fact that houses were used as ceremonial centres, and the mound formed by a pile of old material found by archeologists proves this theory. By the way of contrast, the lecturer puts forth the idea that the found materials could be just trash leaved from the construction process. In this way, the professor undermines the argument presented in the reading passage.
To sum up, the author of the reading and the lecturer have fundamentally different thought about these three theories. When the former expresses his loyalty to provided hypothesis, the latter does not agree that the provided opinions are persuasive enough.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-02-12 | zaid | 80 | view |
| 2023-01-18 | theprasad | 81 | view |
| 2022-11-17 | rpinisetti8 | 80 | view |
| 2022-11-14 | Sakib | 73 | view |
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, while, kind of, by the way, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 7.30242825607 68% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 30.3222958057 148% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1720.0 1373.03311258 125% => OK
No of words: 332.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18072289157 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.04702891845 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72640779468 2.5805825403 106% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 145.348785872 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518072289157 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 520.2 419.366225166 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => 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: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.5544036585 49.2860985944 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.5 110.228320801 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.75 21.698381199 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => 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: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0632599601189 0.272083759551 23% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0185311963196 0.0996497079465 19% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0199841790666 0.0662205650399 30% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0332845508724 0.162205337803 21% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0106985279542 0.0443174109184 24% => 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: 13.3 13.3589403974 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 53.8541721854 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 63.6247240618 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => 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.