Supporting and opposing theories on the usefulness of the buildings in Chaco Canyon
According to the reading and lecture, Archaeologists have been trying to study how the great buildings of Chaco Canyon were used. The author of the article provides three theories to point out the functions of the buildings. The lecturer, however, dispute all theories. His position is that, the hypothesis is not convincing enough. Hence, do not hold water.
Firstly, the author of the article suggest that the structure was mainly used for residential purpose. The author points that the architectural structures used for the buildings were similar to that of "apartment building," a building known for inhabitation by humans. This specific argument is challenged by the lecturer. He argues that, although it has an outer structure similar to apartment buildings, the inferior quality has a contrasting look. He notes that a fireplace would be needed for the families to cook. However, most of these buildings had about 10 fireplaces despite the numerous rooms present.
Furthermore, the author propounds that the buildings could have served as a storage house for food supplies. Emphasizing that the great nature of the house would have made it a great place to store grain maize, which can last for a long period. This argument is refuted by the lecturer. He asserts that the point is untenable, as there is no evidence to prove this. No research studies have shown remnants of large containers or spilled maize. Therefore, the argument doesn't hold water.
Finally, the author states that the buildings could have been used for ceremonial occasions. He stated that the presence of discarded and broken pots at the mound formed by a pile of old materials indicated a sign of festive ceremonies in the buildings. In contrast, the lecturer maintains that the pots were not the only materials found, as other materials such as the presence of building materials which does not correlate to the place being served as a ceremonial were also found. Consequentially, leading to an unwarranted assumption about the place being used for festive ceremonies.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | guna | 70 | view |
| 2023-02-12 | zaid | 80 | view |
| 2023-01-18 | theprasad | 81 | view |
| 2022-11-17 | rpinisetti8 | 80 | view |
- Mass media and the internet have caused people s attention spans to get shorter However the overall effect has been positive while people are less able to focus on one thing they more than make up for it with an enhanced ability to sort through large quan 66
- Turtle Excluder Device uses in combating the threats to endangered sea turtles 70
- Write a statement to agree or disagree People spend more time on personal enjoyment rather than on what they should do 90
- The first step to self knowlege is by rejecting the familiar 66
- Supporting and opposing theories on the usefulness of the buildings in Chaco Canyon 61
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 226, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , &apos
...ilar to that of 'apartment building,' a building known for inhabitation by h...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 468, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... spilled maize. Therefore, the argument doesnt hold water. Finally, the author states...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, look, so, therefore, in contrast, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 10.4613686534 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 22.412803532 103% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 30.3222958057 109% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 5.01324503311 219% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1733.0 1373.03311258 126% => OK
No of words: 333.0 270.72406181 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2042042042 5.08290768461 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27180144563 4.04702891845 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90034128115 2.5805825403 112% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 145.348785872 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.537537537538 0.540411800872 99% => OK
syllable_count: 525.6 419.366225166 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.55342163355 103% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 3.25607064018 215% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.23620309051 134% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 1.25165562914 240% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 13.0662251656 161% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.9606255796 49.2860985944 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.5238095238 110.228320801 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.8571428571 21.698381199 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 7.06452816374 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 4.45695364238 202% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.27373068433 211% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.14988906049 0.272083759551 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0370905959268 0.0996497079465 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0519606203315 0.0662205650399 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0891606524427 0.162205337803 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0451875532382 0.0443174109184 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 13.3589403974 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 53.8541721854 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 11.0289183223 83% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 63.6247240618 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 10.7273730684 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 61.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 18.5 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.