Based on the given materials, the article as well as the lecture, discuss the settlements of Chaco Canyon and its great houses’ functions. The author states that several hypotheses are explaining how the buildings were used. That being said, the lecturer provides several ideas to repudiate these hypotheses.
Initially, the author says that first theory explains that Chaco houses are analogues to apartment buildings at Taos, and every room was a residence for a family. However, the lecturer explains that this cannot be true owing to the fact that only around ten fireplaces existed, and they were not adequate for more than one hundred families who lived there. Thus Chaco houses could not have been residential.
Second, the writer proclaims that Chaco buildings may have been used to store food supplies such as grain maize, which could be saved without spoiling, and the size of the structure was large enough to this purpose. Yet again, the speaker underscores that never have found researchers any traces or container of grains in excavations. Therefore, this theory cannot be correct.
The final point of contention between the reading and listening passages is the theory saying that Chaos houses were cast for ceremonies functions. The author thinks the theory is correct owing to the broken pots which have been found in Pueblo Alto. On the other hand, the speaker explains that a lot of structural materials among which are sands, stone, and constructional tools, have been found there, as well as the broken pots, so the broken pots might have been used by construction workers and be merely regular trashes.
- TPO 28 - Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Parents today are more involved in their children’s education than were parents in the past.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 90
- TPO 32. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Young people today have no influence on the important decisions that determine the future of society as a whole. 80
- TPO 31 less life satisfaction than the past 90
- Tpo 29, to improve the quality of education, universities should spend more money on salaries for university professors. 76
- TOEFL T P O 3 - Integrated Writing Task 3
Both the reading passage and…
Both the reading passage and lecture discuss how the Great Houses were used by the people in Chaco Canyon. The former summarizes three possible theories about their function. However, the lecturer challenges each of these theories.
First, the passage suggests that the Great houses could have served a residential purpose. On the other hand, the professor challenges this idea and states that there weren’t enough fireplaces in the inside of the building to justify its purpose as residential. In fact, only enough fireplaces were found to support ten families, but there should have been enough to support 100 families.
Second, the reading claims that perhaps the Great Houses were used to store food, particularly maize. Nevertheless, the lecturer contradicts this theory and argues that there was lack of evidence inside the buildings. If they were really used for storing food, there should have been spilled maize on the ground or broken parts nearby.
Finally, the author of the text suggests that the buildings could have been used for ceremonial purposes due to a large pile of broken pots. In contrast, the professor counters that the pile also included a lot of other materials, such as construction materials. He further states that perhaps it was a trash pile used to throw away many things in the town.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 358, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...n one hundred families who lived there. Thus Chaco houses could not have been reside...
^^^^
Line 7, column 529, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... workers and be merely regular trashes.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, may, second, so, therefore, thus, well, as to, such as, as well as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 10.4613686534 191% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 22.412803532 71% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 5.01324503311 80% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1381.0 1373.03311258 101% => OK
No of words: 266.0 270.72406181 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19172932331 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 4.04702891845 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52906950261 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 158.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.593984962406 0.540411800872 110% => OK
syllable_count: 410.4 419.366225166 98% => 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: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.51434878587 330% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 21.2450331126 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.5976204947 49.2860985944 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.083333333 110.228320801 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 21.698381199 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.41666666667 7.06452816374 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218329906542 0.272083759551 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0787095573467 0.0996497079465 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0520932299132 0.0662205650399 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129200398303 0.162205337803 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432979109397 0.0443174109184 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 13.3589403974 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 53.8541721854 107% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 11.0289183223 97% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.2367328918 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 65.0 63.6247240618 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.498013245 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27 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.