Essay topics:
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 reading passage states that the great houses in Chaco could be built for three purposes. First, they could be used as residential apartmants for hundreds of people as they found hundreds of rooms, second, as food storage for grain maize as they have a suitable storage places, or used as ceremonial centers. However, the speaker has a negative opinion toward the three explanations for why these building were built as such huge.
First, the speaker points out that if these houses were built for living, they should be many fire places for cocking corresponding to such a massive number of people. However, this is not the case.
Second, the lecturer adds those building although the explanation for using them as food storage could be plausible, they didn't, because if that explanation is valid, why are there more Maize in floor?
Third, the reading passage suggests that building could be used as ceremonial centers after excavation as they found large number of old material and broken pots. On the other hand, the speaker has alternative interpetation; He says those materials could be construction trash, which resulted from building, and even those the broken pots probably are regular trash which used by building workers.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-16 | TiOluwani97 | 87 | view |
| 2023-02-12 | zaid | 80 | view |
| 2023-01-18 | theprasad | 81 | view |
| 2022-11-17 | rpinisetti8 | 80 | view |
| 2022-11-14 | Sakib | 73 | view |
- Technology has made children less creative than they were in the past 70
- Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before it means putting old ideas together in new ways 50
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society one must study its major cities 50
- The following memorandum is from the president of Primo Doll Manufacturing Inc According to a survey last year of parents who purchased the Elkie our most popular doll 90 percent reported that although their children were extremely satisfied with the doll 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Nuclear power is a useful source of energy for the future Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 123, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...s food storage could be plausible, they didnt, because if that explanation is valid, ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, third, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 5.04856512141 119% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 7.30242825607 41% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 12.0772626932 50% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 22.412803532 80% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 30.3222958057 43% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1042.0 1373.03311258 76% => OK
No of words: 203.0 270.72406181 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13300492611 5.08290768461 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.77462671648 4.04702891845 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52464856416 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 116.0 145.348785872 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.571428571429 0.540411800872 106% => OK
syllable_count: 307.8 419.366225166 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 3.25607064018 154% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.23620309051 73% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
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: 8.0 13.0662251656 61% => 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: 25.0 21.2450331126 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.4601378761 49.2860985944 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.25 110.228320801 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.375 21.698381199 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06452816374 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 4.33554083885 46% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.119917286919 0.272083759551 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0626243960904 0.0996497079465 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508911434138 0.0662205650399 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0771603098164 0.162205337803 48% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.050821177164 0.0443174109184 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.3589403974 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 53.8541721854 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.2367328918 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 44.0 63.6247240618 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 10.7273730684 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.498013245 114% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 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.