In the reading, the author was talking about three theories about the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, such as apartment complexes for residential purposes, storage for food supplies, or ceremonial centers. However, the speaker found these arguments not convincing enough.
First about the residential reasons, he claims that there would have been more fireplaces for each family living in these buildings. In other words, an apartment complex would have a capacity of around 100, he thought that 10 fireplaces wouldn't be enough for all, and he gave the example of finding 10 fireplaces in a large building. Hence, the speaker thinks that these settlements are not primarily used as residential purposes.
The speaker, secondly, didn’t agree that these buildings are made for food storage either. He argues that the excavation evidence is not enough to support the food relation. For example, he explains that there were no containers for maize, which is needed for storing food for a long time. Moreover, he mentioned that there was no maize on the floor, which would be seen if these rooms were used as food storage.
Thirdly, the speaker counters the idea of ceremonial centers. He gave an example of a mountain that had more materials found than the buildings. Next, he proposed an alternative explanation for pots found, indeed, these pots would be just trash, regular leftovers.
Overall, the speaker isn’t convinced that these three arguments discussed in the text, and he gave his reasons why they are not convincing for him.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 238, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...ound 100, he thought that 10 fireplaces wouldnt be enough for all, and he gave the exam...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, for example, such as, talking about, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 10.4613686534 124% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 12.0772626932 91% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 22.412803532 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 17.0 30.3222958057 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1310.0 1373.03311258 95% => OK
No of words: 252.0 270.72406181 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19841269841 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.98428260373 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61705070577 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 145.348785872 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.551587301587 0.540411800872 102% => OK
syllable_count: 386.1 419.366225166 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.8427980186 49.2860985944 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.769230769 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3846153846 21.698381199 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.69230769231 7.06452816374 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 4.33554083885 23% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => 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: 0.106281844726 0.272083759551 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0393145081387 0.0996497079465 39% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0464422904674 0.0662205650399 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0650525791796 0.162205337803 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462573082292 0.0443174109184 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 63.6247240618 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 10.7273730684 135% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 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.