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.
The reading and the listening are both about great houses which are found around Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. The author of the reading believes that there are 3 possible explanations about how they were used. The lecturer challenges the statements made by the author. He is of the opinion that none of these three theories is correct.
First of all, the author suggests that these structures were used as a residence for a larger amount of people. It is mentioned that they are very similar to the famous apartment building at Taos where people have lived for a long period of time. This argument is challenged by the Lecturer. He says that if these structures were used as a residence, there would definitely have a larger amount of fireplaces than they actually do. Furthermore, he argues that the largest of the house contains only a minute fireplaces, even though it was big enough to fit more than a hundred families.
Secondly, the writer contends after excavation that they could have been used to store grain maze for a long time. The article notes that the size of the house was suitable for this reason. The lecturer, however, rebuts this by asserting that researchers have found no leftover grain, or container it was kept in. He elaborates on this by mentioning that if the great house were used to store food, there could definitely be a sign of both of these.
Finally, it is stated in the article that the houses would have been used as ceremonial centers. The author establishes that an enormous mound which contained a large number of broken pots has been found by archaeologists. The lecturer, on the contrary, posits that mound contained other building materials along with broken pots. He puts forth the idea that mound was merely trash left behind when the house was being constructed and therefore, it indicates that the houses were not used for ceremonial purposes.
In conclusion, the lecturer successfully challenged the statements made by the author.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? To improve the quality of education, universities should spend money on salaries university professors. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 88
- TPO-integrated writing(Chaco Canyon) 3
- The extended family is less important now than it was in the past. 73
- TPO 1, Integrated Task 3
- Repenomamus robustus (R.robustus) was not an active hunter 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... explanations about how they were used. The lecturer challenges the statements made...
^^^
Line 3, column 232, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...Taos where people have lived for a long period of time. This argument is challenged by the Lec...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 509, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'fireplace'?
Suggestion: fireplace
...est of the house contains only a minute fireplaces, even though it was big enough to fit m...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 160, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
... that an enormous mound which contained a large number of broken pots has been found by archaeolo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, in conclusion, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 10.4613686534 229% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 12.0772626932 157% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1656.0 1373.03311258 121% => OK
No of words: 337.0 270.72406181 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91394658754 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28457229495 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61124898826 2.5805825403 101% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516320474777 0.540411800872 96% => OK
syllable_count: 517.5 419.366225166 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 3.25607064018 276% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 13.0662251656 138% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 21.2450331126 85% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.9413528325 49.2860985944 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.0 110.228320801 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7222222222 21.698381199 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.44444444444 7.06452816374 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 4.19205298013 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.27373068433 187% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.104632901622 0.272083759551 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0339156088607 0.0996497079465 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.031854546366 0.0662205650399 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0567273566562 0.162205337803 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0348882105262 0.0443174109184 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 13.3589403974 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 53.8541721854 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.42419426049 94% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.498013245 88% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 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.