TPO 05_ Integrated Writing
The reading passage contends that the large houses in New Mexico could have been used living, storing food, or ceremonies. The lecturer, however, refutes the arguments presented in the reading passage due to the following reasons:
First, it's not possible to assume that many people lived in the houses inasmuch as the number of fireplaces is far less than the number of rooms. For example, in one of the biggest houses, only 10 fireplaces are found, while there are 100 rooms in the house. So the houses couldn't have been used by many residents. This contradicts the reading authors' points of view that the houses were residential.
Second, the houses couldn't have been places to store food. If the places were used for storing grain maize, at least some traces of grain maize or containers must have been found, while the excavations disprove this. As a result, there is another contradiction between the reading and the lecture.
Third, broken pots found by archeologists are not good reasons to support that the houses were used for ceremonies. In addition to broken pots, excavators have found other materials such as construction tools; this could implicate that both the construction tools and the broken pots have been the trash of constructors of the buildings. This is another point in the reading that the lecturer disagrees with.
To sum up, the lecturer provides compelling evidence to disprove the arguments of the reading passage.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 274, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...e 100 rooms in the house. So the houses couldnt have been used by many residents. This ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 20, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...were residential. Second, the houses couldnt have been places to store food. If the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, third, while, at least, for example, in addition, such as, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 10.4613686534 134% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 7.30242825607 55% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 22.412803532 49% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 30.3222958057 89% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1219.0 1373.03311258 89% => OK
No of words: 239.0 270.72406181 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10041841004 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.93187294222 4.04702891845 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58393185654 2.5805825403 100% => OK
Unique words: 127.0 145.348785872 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.531380753138 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 361.8 419.366225166 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.116997792494 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.23620309051 49% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 1.25165562914 320% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.465497508 49.2860985944 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.583333333 110.228320801 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9166666667 21.698381199 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.41666666667 7.06452816374 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 4.33554083885 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 4.45695364238 157% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.328265428429 0.272083759551 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128132003633 0.0996497079465 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0867807390918 0.0662205650399 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171300072895 0.162205337803 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0888755026635 0.0443174109184 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 13.3589403974 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 53.8541721854 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.0289183223 86% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.2367328918 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.42419426049 93% => OK
difficult_words: 49.0 63.6247240618 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 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.