Question

Of all the mysteries in the world, none has been as popular as that of the Loch Ness Monster. Perhaps the biggest mystery is whether it is convincing evidence or a simple desire to believe that keeps the myth alive.

Loch Ness is a lake in Scotland. The loch, or lake, is known for sightings of a mysterious monster. Most who see this monster, known as Nessie, describe something with a long neck and several humps above the water. Sometimes the "monster" is moving in these sightings, and sometimes it is still. Many have suggested that Nessie might be a plesiosaur (plea-see-a-soar), an aquatic dinosaur that was trapped in the loch after the last ice age.

The plesiosaur theory presents several problems. First, the plesiosaur is an air breather. Such a creature would need to surface often and, therefore, be seen more frequently. Second, it's unlikely that the same creature has lived in the loch since the last ice age. Today's creature would have to be the offspring of an original plesiosaur trapped long ago. This would suggest multiple creatures in the loch (needed to produce offspring). Again, sightings would be more frequent if this were the case.

So from a purely logical stand point, the existence of such a large and ancient creature is unlikely. But assume for a minute that it is possible. What would a plesiosaur need to live in an enclosed lake?

Why does the author ask the reader to "assume for a minute that it is possible" in paragraph 3? (5 points)

Group of answer choices

She does not believe the evidence is very convincing on its own.

She wants to give specific evidence for why the theory is flawed.

She wants to provide evidence that does not support her point.

She would like there to be more evidence than there is.

Answer 1

By stating that you should "assume its possibly" that would mean to think for a second that it is possible. Hinting that she doesn't believe that the evidence is real c:
Welcome to QuestionCove cx