What Are Fallacious Arguments In Advertising

3031 Words7 Pages

In order to effectively communicate and present an argument, authors must avoid using fallacious reasoning. This is not always successful and some others, intentionally or not, manage to squeeze in some fallacies. Conversely, authors always want to use rhetorical appeals, and rarely fail to include all three: ethos, pathos, and logos. In three specific articles Kid Kustomers by Eric Schlosser, Slow-Creeping Brain Death by Carrie McLaren and Jason Torchinsky and Evolution of Advertising also by McLaren and Torchinsky, the authors put forth arguments about advertisement-related progressions. Over the past century advertising has changed a lot, and we’ve also been changed by advertising.
Jason Torchinsky and Carrie McLaren detail how advertising …show more content…

One of the more obvious fallacious arguments is the repeated jumping to conclusions. The author uses one example from each documented era as a representation of all advertisements from that period. Even though this one ad fits the author’s argument, that doesn’t mean it’s indicative of all advertisements published around that time. There are some other fallacies, but they appear in the example advertisements and are not directly used by the author. In an example Listerine ad from 1941, an appeal to authority argument is used. The ad in the article essentially says “Because the scientist knows more than you, everything he says is correct.” This is obviously fallacious, because this fake scientist is not an authority on …show more content…

In the case of Kid Kustomers, Schlosser was able to clearly evidence the fact that these advertisers are, by their own admission, targeting kids. It angers me to see that people in marketing, James U. McNeal in particular, have no trouble classifying the children’s nagging into seven different categories, and think it’s an acceptable method to have kids get things from their parents. Sure he favors the “more traditional marketing approach” of convincing the kids that the advertisers are to be trusted “…in much the same way as mom or dad, grandma or grandpa” (Schlosser 355). Children are pliable and using them to sell products is repulsive and immoral, because they are mentally incapable of making rational decisions about what they want. So much, arguably too much, effort is put into learning as much as possible about children, including how they dream. I think the companies that supported the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on advertising to children should have fought harder, because without intervention by someone who cares about the children more than sales, the advertising situation won’t get any

Open Document