TPO-05
The reading and the lecture are both about how the great houses in the settlements of Chaco Canyon in New Mexico were used. The author of the reading suggests three theories about how the huses were used, However, the lecturer costs doubt on the claims made in the article.
First of all, the author points out that there were hundreds of people in each house. It is mentioned that houses appear strikingly somilar to tha large, well-known “ apartment buildings”. This point is challenged by the lecturer. He says although the buildings from outside look like there were living many families, fron inside casts doubt that many people live inside. He mentions that there are not many fires to for cooking, and there are no many rooms which can cover hundereds of people .
Secondly, the article contends that the houses were used to store food supplies. It notes one of the essintail crops of the Chco people was grain maize. This crop could be stored for long time, and the big size of the houses made them sutiable for storing. The lecturer rebuts this argument. He suggests there is no eviedence fot this theory. Furthermore. He argues there is no big contens.
Finally, the author states that the houses coulde use as cermonial centers. The article establishes that the archaeologists identified a huge mound formed by a pile of old material in one of the houses. The lecturer, on the other hand, points that this theory unsupporting.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 455, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...any fires to for cooking, and there are no many rooms which can cover hundereds of...
^^
Line 3, column 504, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ooms which can cover hundereds of people . Secondly, the article contends tha...
^^
Line 6, column 345, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...there is no eviedence fot this theory. Furthermore. He argues there is no big contens. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, well, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 2.0 5.04856512141 40% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 22.412803532 89% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 30.3222958057 99% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 5.01324503311 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1219.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 247.0 270.72406181 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93522267206 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.96437052324 4.04702891845 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.49801885601 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 145.348785872 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591093117409 0.540411800872 109% => OK
syllable_count: 368.1 419.366225166 88% => 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: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 21.2450331126 71% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.6196668472 49.2860985944 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 76.1875 110.228320801 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4375 21.698381199 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 7.06452816374 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 4.19205298013 72% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 4.45695364238 135% => 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: 0.353327870466 0.272083759551 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0997802112318 0.0996497079465 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0664447798759 0.0662205650399 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191039559589 0.162205337803 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332191922401 0.0443174109184 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.6 13.3589403974 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 53.8541721854 120% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 11.0289183223 73% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.42419426049 98% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 63.6247240618 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 10.498013245 76% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.2008830022 71% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.