Arguments for the existence of the Loch Ness monster have persisted for almost one hundred and fifty years. [The Loch Ness monster is alleged to be a prehistoric dinosaur inhabiting Loch Ness in Scotland]. The [primary evidence for it has been eyewitness testimony, some photographs, and several videos]. [None of the evidence supports the claims that the loch is inhabited by such a creature]. And [other evidence {suggests} that it is unlikely that such a creature exists]. Eyewitness testimony is {notoriously} unreliable]. [People have testified to seeing all kinds of things that don't exist] and [have made false claims about things that could not have happened in the way described] – {witches flying on brooms}, which {violates the basic laws of physics; UFOs making right-angle turns at an incredibly high speed, which, again, violates the laws of physics; the existence of troll and fairies}.
[...] The final argument is that science would not support the existence of this creature because there would not be enough food in the loch to support it, and the loch is relatively new, therefore there is no explanation for where the creature previously lived. This shares the same problem as the previous argument, it is a slippery slope to think that we (science) has all the answers that would explain the movements of this creature. It is clear that very little is known about this creature, but it has been seen before. [...]
[...] A systematic and exhaustive sonar study of the loch in 2003 found nothing that would match the identified characteristics of a living creature the purported size of the monster in the loch.” Once again this argument is not giving sufficient proof of the claim, it is just resting on the assertion that some of the studies that have been done give evidence to the effect that the Loch Ness does not exist. It says that a sonar scan was done of the loch, but this is not sufficient. [...]
[...] While these are examples of equally un- plausible events, such because one event is not plausible (like the existence of flying UFOs or flying witches), does not mean that they are related to each other is a cause and effect type of way. Therefore the meaning that the passage is trying to create here is unrelated to the argument of the passage. The passage says that virtually all of the photos and videos presented of the creature are of poor quality. [...]
[...] Step 4 Assess for Soundness In the passage The Loch Ness Monster, the author introduces and discusses the presences or myth of the Loch Ness Monster. With regard to this issue, the author holds the position that the presence of this monster is highly unlikely for a number of reasons. While it is true that the Loch Ness monster is unlikely to exist, there are many holes in the line of argument that the author gives. They begin by saying that “eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.” This then makes the soundness of the argument fall onto the validity of the eyewitness testimony. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
