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 passage accounts for three theories that archaeologists hypothesize about using of great houses were settled in New Mexico and lecture rejects all the theories by evidence. together, the two would have their logical reasons that I explain in the following paragraph.
To begin with, a first theory which was implied by author discussed purely residential and using these house as a settlement for many people. on the contrary, narrator pass out this idea and he thought houses, in contrast, are primarily residential and it is impossible to housing many people.
the second theory was mentioned by passage writer is about using as storing source for food. he believed that the size of great houses would make them very suitable for this purpose. on the other hand, the professor disagrees with that idea and declare that food may spoil and it did not use as store food supplies.
The last theory acclaim that ceremonies celebrate there and a lot of broken pots will be proof of it. narrator pass out that theory very easy and said those broken pots could be trash.
together, the two would have undeniable reasons, but I agree with the author because I think he is right for an example third theory its evidence was coherent but professor rejected it
- Advertising is influencing people more and more.Is this a positive or a negative trend? Give your own opinion and examples 56
- The three pie charts below show the changes in annual spending by a particular UK school in 1981, 1991 and 2001. 73
- The first chart below shows the results of a survey which sampled a cross-section of100,000 people asking if they traveled abroad and why they traveled for the period1994-98. The second chart shows their destinations over the same period.Write a report fo 78
- TPO5 3
- the chart below sows the amount spent on six consumer goods in four European countries. 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 178, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Together
...e rejects all the theories by evidence. together, the two would have their logical reaso...
^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 142, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
... house as a settlement for many people. on the contrary, narrator pass out this id...
^^
Line 2, column 273, Rule ID: IT_IS_JJ_TO_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'house'?
Suggestion: house
...ily residential and it is impossible to housing many people. the second theory was men...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
... is impossible to housing many people. the second theory was mentioned by passage ...
^^^
Line 3, column 93, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: He
...about using as storing source for food. he believed that the size of great houses ...
^^
Line 3, column 183, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: On
...ke them very suitable for this purpose. on the other hand, the professor disagrees...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Together
...id those broken pots could be trash. together, the two would have undeniable reasons,...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, may, second, so, third, i think, in contrast, on the contrary, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 7.30242825607 137% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 12.0772626932 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 21.0 30.3222958057 69% => 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: 1049.0 1373.03311258 76% => OK
No of words: 214.0 270.72406181 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.90186915888 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82475343497 4.04702891845 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46461994469 2.5805825403 96% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 145.348785872 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.607476635514 0.540411800872 112% => OK
syllable_count: 324.0 419.366225166 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.23620309051 85% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.9011141888 49.2860985944 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.9 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4 21.698381199 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.7 7.06452816374 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 4.19205298013 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 4.45695364238 22% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.27373068433 94% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0769299082899 0.272083759551 28% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0317875742551 0.0996497079465 32% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0359671013779 0.0662205650399 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0441966437771 0.162205337803 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0417636365606 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 13.3589403974 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.42419426049 97% => OK
difficult_words: 47.0 63.6247240618 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 3.33333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.