|
|
|
|
|
castro cuba
|
|
|
Advertisement One: Proactiv Solution When reviewing a Proactiv Solution acne fighting medicine advertisement (see attached) there were many fallacies to be found within the ad itself, as well as the surrounding aids to the argument. The premises and conclusion of the advertisement are labeled accordingly on the attached add. As well the argument is designed as a variation of a V argument with three main premises, and one main conclusion. The first premise, however also acts as a sub-conclusion to the six quiz questions on the side of the advertisement which can be considered premises for that sub-conclusion. This is seen in the diagram below: The initial fallacy which is committed lies within the quiz questions which the advertisement has created for the reader to take in order to see if their product will “work for your acne”. Each question which is provided is extremely vague allowing for anyone that has experienced even a single blemish to answer “yes” to at least three of the six questions, as well each question suffers from the false dichotomy fallacy as they suggest that each of the general options which are provided are exhaustive options. This is seen in all the questions but especially number two which states “Most of my break outs are small bumps and black heads, but sometimes I get those nasty megazits”. These definitions, as well as those included in the other five questions are much to obscure for their use. This is observable again in question number two as there are many other types of blemishes which may occur as well, what exactly constitutes as a “megazit”? If one is to know if their specific skin type will be cured by such a product as Proactiv Solution the questions which identify the skin type must use specific terminology. Perhaps if the questions were more precise in their description the company would attract customers who have the skin type which the product would work affectively on.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
