Evaluate the explanations that they have presented in light of the material from the chapter. See if you agree with their reasoning. Is there anything about their explanation that you feel does not account for all of the data? Does their explanation seem to be plausible in light of everything else that is known about the world? What other explanation might better or more simply explain the issue in question? 5 sentences or more.
Is bigfoot real?
Argument 1:
There are many eyewitness reports of seeing bigfoot.
There are video and audio recordings of bigfoot.
The recorded footprints of big foot do not match any animal or human.
Therefor, bigfoot is real.
Argument 2:
The video and audio recordings of big foot are not clear.
There is no physical evidence of bigfoot.
The food chain cannot support a bigfoot population.
Therefor, bigfoot is not real.
I think this topic is interesting because there are people who have created television shows and dedicated their lives to trying to find this mysterious creature. I think the second argument is stronger than the first because if big foot did exist there would be some type of hard evidence proving it. Someone would find a dead one in the woods or stumble across a giant cave where they slept. Also it is a known hoax that people make videos of and try to make a profit on. It was interesting for me to make the argument that bigfoot is real because I have never truly looked into why people thought it was real. There is limited proof on the side of the first argument because footprints can be altered and they have proven to be in many cases. Any strong scientific proof or more premises on either side of the argument would make it stronger.
WhatsApp us