The author of the reading passage proposes three theories as likely explanations of the primary function of Chaco Canyon houses, grant structures built in the I2th century. The lecturer, however, points to the inaccuracies in each of these theories.
The lecturer argues that the modest number of fireplaces in these structures is in contradiction with the huge size of these houses, indicating that these structures could not have been used for Residential purposes. The Reading, however, draws comparisons between the Chaco houses and other similar large Residential structures in support of the "Residential" theory.
The second theory, that the houses were used for food storage, is also rejected by the lecturer. He explains that a place that had been used for storing maize would have many traces of scattered Maize, which is not the case in the area of the Chaco Canyon houses. This proves that the "food storage theory" is unlikely.
Finally, regarding the third theory, the "ceremony theory'', the lecturer contends that the presence op broken pots close to the great houses does not offer sufficient proof that this was a place for ceremonial activities. He argues that there are other materials such as pieces of construction trash found along with the broken pots, which suggest that these pots were probably not used for ceremonial purposes but instead were discarded by construction workers upon completion of the great houses.