12.8综合写作

SilentScorpiusUID: 2686998

T5

The passage mentions three possible theories about the usage of massive stone building in Chaco Canyon. In the lecture, the professor, however, refuted these theories respectively.
    According to the lecture these “great houses” must be used for living because these buildings were very like ones in Taos, Mew Mexico which many people lived in. While the reading stated that living was definitely not the function of these houses since there was no evidence to demonstrate people once living there. The professor pointed out that the number of fireplaces in the building is so few that cannot support such large number of families. Especially, one large building which had enough room for 100 families only had 10 fireplaces. Thus, these building can not be used as residential.
    In addition, the professor refutes the viewpoint showed in the passage that these structures were used to store grain maize, by mentioning that, based on excavation evidence, there were no trace of maize and containers. So these houses would not be used for storing purpose.
    Finally, the professor stated that pots excavated from mound must be trash after the construction of the buildings, which challenges the conclusion made by the writer who said that these stuffs indicated that these structures were used for ceremonies. The professor maintained that sand, stone and other materials were just normal construction stuffs, and pots can also be regular trash too. Therefore, using these buildings for ceremonies would not be supported by the discoveries of these materials.
    In general, the professor cast doubt on all three theories the reading provided by showing evidences found in excavation or giving a alternative explanation..

daboraUID: 2574809

The passage mentions three possible theories about the usage of massive stone building in Chaco Canyon. In the lecture, the professor, however, refuted these theories respectively.
   According to the lecture ,these “great houses” must be used for living because these buildings were very like resemble是否更好呢？ones in Taos, Mew Mexico which many people lived in. While the reading stated that living was definitely not the function of these houses since there was no evidence to demonstrate that people once livinglived there. The professor pointed out that the number of fireplaces in the building is so few that they cannot support such alarge number of families. Especially, one large building which had enough room for 100 families only had 10 fireplaces. Thus, these building can not be used as residential.
    In addition, the professor refutes the viewpoint showed in the passage that these structures were used to store grain maize, by mentioning that, based on excavation evidence, there were no trace of maize and containers. So these houses would not be used for storing purpose.
   Finally, the professor stated that pots excavated from mound must be trash after the construction of the buildings, which challenges the conclusion made by the writer who said that these stuffs indicated that these structures were used for ceremonies. The professor maintained that sand, stone and other materials were just normal construction stuffs, and pots can also be regular trash too. Therefore, using these buildings for ceremonies would not be supported by the discoveries of these materials.
    In general, the professor cast doubt on all three theories the reading provided by showing evidences found in excavation or giving a alternative explanation..
这篇综合作文觉着楼主 写的比我好，语法存在小小错误外，基本上内容逻辑都值得我学习，综合作文，我心中的纠结啊。。。

tiantian_raoUID: 2623283

The passage mentions three possible theories about the usage of massive stone building in Chaco Canyon. In the lecture, the professor, however, refuted(应该用现在时) these theories respectively.
    According to the lecture（应该是reading吧·~） these “great houses” must be used for living because these buildings were very like ones（感觉有点别扭呢·~~用similar会不会更好？） in Taos, Mew Mexico which many people lived in. While the reading（这里是lecture） stated that living was definitely not the function of these houses since there was no evidence to demonstrate people once living there. The professor pointed out that the number of fireplaces in the building is so few that cannot support such large number of families. Especially, one large building which had enough room for 100 families only had 10 fireplaces. Thus, these building can not be used as residential.
    In addition, the professor refutes the viewpoint showed in the passage that these structures were used to store grain maize,(可以省略，) by mentioning that, based on excavation evidence, there were no trace of maize and containers. So these houses would not be used for storing purpose.
    Finally, the professor stated that pots excavated from mound must be trash after the construction of the buildings, which challenges the conclusion made by the writer who said that these stuffs indicated that these structures were used for ceremonies. The professor maintained that sand, stone and other materials were just normal construction stuffs, and pots can also be regular trash too. Therefore, using these buildings for ceremonies would not be supported by the discoveries of these materials.
    In general, the professor cast doubt on all three theories the reading provided by showing evidences found in excavation or giving a alternative explanation..
总结的很好，比我写的全面，值得学习哈~~~建议注意一些细节的逻辑~~~

SilentScorpiusUID: 2686998

乱用模不检查板的结果就是lecture和reading的顺序反了...