The writer begins presenting the evidence with 'In 1933, Nessie-sighting developed into a favourite pastime for travellers to the Highlands'. The writer clearly separates each piece of important evidence into paragraphs. The writer first tells of a famous picture. The writer goes on to say how 'scientists agree it is an animal, at least one investigator has identified it as a bird'. Reading that tells you that there's definitely something there, and most think it's an animal, just like you'd like it to be. But saying that one investigator identified it as a bird shows some mystery in the whole business. Making things not completely certain about it is what makes it interesting. It's what makes people want to come, to find out for themselves, for sure.
The writer goes on to give lots of evidence, not giving theories for or against it, but just giving the evidence, so the reader can take it in, and entirely make up their own mind.
The writer then explains about LNIB (Loch Ness Investigation Bureau), and how it was created 'with the purpose of researching the possibility of a large unidentified creature in Loch Ness'. The writer then tells of how over ten years, LNIB has collected enough data to certify Nessie's presence in the loch. This is the first time (the reader will think) that a specially set up bureau has said there's definitely something there. It's all very well with people sighting, but they could be lying. This is the first absolutely reliable source. The writer takes the opportunity to go on to give even more solid evidence, telling the reader about an underwater photo taken by LNIB, showing 'what appears to be the hind quarter, flipper and portion of a tail, of a large aquatic animal'. Before the reader can fully take this in, the writer also says that in October 1987, there was a sonar sweep of the loch. Nessie did not surface, but several 'large targets were recorded, which could not be explained'. For one thing, the introduction of the word several, for the first time gives the possibility of there being more than one Nessie. This sudden new information grips the reader to read on. It then says that these 'large targets' could not be explained. This contrast between certainty and uncertainty has the reader pondering on what they know, and what they could know; what cold be true, what might be true.
After this, the writer gives a full description, based on all the sightings, of Nessie. Giving the description shows again that there definitely is something there, otherwise what is the writer describing. This is also a large contrast with the beginning paragraphs, when you weren't too sure there was a monster, and now the writer is describing it. The way the writer has structured the article is effective, slowly revealing different pieces of information, and slowly forming an ever-clearer picture of what's true, and what isn't. The writer says 'most estimates of her length range from 15 to 50 feet'. This is actually quite a large range, so there is again, a feeling of uncertainty, mingled in with all the certainty, to balance it out. The writer says that Nessie could be a dinosaur, a plesiosaur to be precise, which 'supposedly became extinct 70 million years ago'. This theory is very interesting. For the reader to think that somewhere within Loch Ness, there could be a dinosaur supposedly wiped off the face off the Earth, 70 million years ago is a staggering thought, making the reader want to go there even more, in case they might catch a glimpse of this dinosaur.
The writer confirms the reader's thoughts in the next paragraph, saying 'it would be difficult to deny that there is something unusual in Loch Ness'. The reader can relate to this thought. The writer then poses some questions, and gives a possible answer in the following paragraph. Theories like this one are interesting for people to read. It's the thought of 'it could be this, or it could be this or…', that makes it interesting. The theory put forward in that paragraph is possible, sounds realistic, and the readers find themselves believing it. All the thoughts, theories, certainties and uncertainties created by the writer in these sections will have the reader thinking about the Loch Ness Monster, and interest them enough to go and actually visit the place. I think it is very well written, and does make people want to go.
2.
The final paragraph links with the heading and the opening paragraphs. The writer devotes this paragraph to saying whether he or she believes in the Loch Ness Monster or not. The heading for the article is 'THE LOCH NESS MONSTER - does t really exist?'. This question could have either answer, yes or no, with equal chance of getting either, but in the final paragraph, the writer seems very convinced there is a monster there. The opening paragraph talks about Urquhart Castle, and it's surroundings. The final Paragraph says 'When I return to the Highlands, I too shall station myself at Urquhart Castle…'. Throughout the entire article, the writer does not talk about Urquhart Castle except in the opening and ending paragraphs. This is the link between the two. In the first paragraph, as well, the writer talks of people going to Urquhart, and looking to see if they can see Nessie. The writer in the last paragraph also says they too shall station themselves at Urquhart Castle, 'with my binoculars and hope for a glimpse of Scotland's best known legend of the loch!'. This is a link as well. Things like those are not talked about throughout the other paragraphs, and having this link brings the reader 'back to reality', when reading; out of all the thoughts of the loch', and back to thinking whether they'd go or not.
The last paragraph is different from the rest of the article because of a few things. For one it is the first time the writer gives his or her opinion. Listening to someone else's opinion is interesting, and may influence yours. All the other paragraphs, talking about the evidence of the presence of Nessie, are in the past. The final one shunts you right back up to the present, suddenly, to hear the writer's opinion. This paragraph is much livelier, and has exclamation marks, and is rather like talking to the writer yourself. The final paragraph is an effective ending for the article. To give an opinion, when the reader has been making up their own throughout the reading, is an effective way to settle the readers mind from all the evidence pouring in. The last line, '…and hope for a glimpse of Scotland's best-known legend of the loch!' is an excellent ending. I think this because it's very encouraging for someone to go, and it makes the writer sound excited about wanting to go there, which will in turn influence the reader to go with the same excitement.
