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 Caco 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 storedsomewhere, 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.
The reading states that there are three compelling theories about usage of buildings in Chaco Canyon and provides three reasons of support. However, the professor explains that none of the theories mentioned were convincing and refutes each of the author's reasons.
First, the reading claims that Chaco structures were used for residential purposes. The professor refutes this point by saying that though, from outside it may seem like native american buildings, but the inside features of the structure casts doubt on the theory. The professor states that as the buildings were large and can provide shelter for hundred's of families, there must be many fire places to perform cooking activities. Instead, it featured only few fire places. He provides an example of a large building having only ten fire places even though there are rooms for more than hundred families to survive.
Second, the reading posits that the structures were probably used for storage of food supplies. However, the professor contends that the mentioned claim was unsupported by the evidence found. According to the reading, the buildings stored Maize grains. But, in the excavations neither there were maize grains nor any maize containers. If the buildings were used for storage purposes then there must be some amounts of spillages of maize grains or evidences of any spillage containers.
Third, the reading avers that the buildings were used of ceremonial activities. The professor opposes this point by explaining that the reason wasn't well supported . He states that, the excavations revealed other materials which leads that the strustures were not used for ceremonial purposes. The excavations revealed that site consists of large construction materials like construction tools, sand and stone which makes this place seem like a construction material dumping jone. The broken pots were rather the food eaten by construction workers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 587, Rule ID: NODT_DOZEN[1]
Message: Use simply: 'a hundred'.
Suggestion: a hundred
...en though there are rooms for more than hundred families to survive. Second, the readi...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 143, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...his point by explaining that the reason wasnt well supported . He states that, the ex...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 163, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ing that the reason wasnt well supported . He states that, the excavations reveale...
^^
Line 4, column 523, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e broken pots were rather the food eaten by construction workers.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, well
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 : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 22.412803532 85% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1620.0 1373.03311258 118% => OK
No of words: 300.0 270.72406181 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61450607012 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 145.348785872 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.543333333333 0.540411800872 101% => OK
syllable_count: 488.7 419.366225166 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.23620309051 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 2.5761589404 116% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 13.0662251656 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 21.2450331126 80% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.9758539918 49.2860985944 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.2941176471 110.228320801 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6470588235 21.698381199 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47058823529 7.06452816374 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => 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: 0.148593901175 0.272083759551 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0495990160101 0.0996497079465 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0386532628201 0.0662205650399 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.093127105493 0.162205337803 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0262256335075 0.0443174109184 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 13.3589403974 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.74 12.2367328918 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 63.6247240618 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.498013245 84% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.