ASSIGNMENT:
Choose an advertisement that contains at least three or four rhetorical devices or fallacies (but more would be better!), from a newspaper or a magazine (in which case you should scan the ad, save it as a PDF, and submit it with your assignment) or an online source (in which case you should include the EXACT URL with your assignment, pasted as a link with the assignment). You CANNOT use video ads for this assignment choose an ad that is an image, not a video.
The advertisement must be made after 2000 CE (no ads produced before the year 2000).
The advertisement must be in ENGLISH. Otherwise, your analysis cannot be graded.
Analyze the ad for uses of rhetorical devices or fallacies. Explain which devices you see in the ad, making sure to be specific in your analysis. You must clearly identify the specific parts of the advertisement that you find rhetorical or fallacious.
In addition to identifying any rhetorical devices and fallacies, analyze the ad in terms of the following:
Who is targeted in the ad (who is the target audience?)?
What psychological effect does the ad have on the audience?
What subconscious needs or desires among the audience does the ad seem to be playing upon?
The written analysis must be at least 1000 words (to earn minimum credit for this assignment)
*****Here are some of the rhetorical devices and fallacies in this module I’ve learned and I would like some of these terms included in the essay****
Ad Populum: The Ad Populum fallacy is when a claim is made that an idea should be accepted because a large number of people favor it or believe it to be true.
Ad hominem: (“against the person”) and tu quoque/inconsistency ad hominem (“you, too!”) fallacies focus on people rather than on the arguments or evidence the person is presenting. They usually take the form of “You shouldn’t believe X’s argument because X is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque).” In some cases, the person’s circumstances are used as the basis for rejecting the person’s claim, in which case it is a “circumstantial ad hominem.” For example, when we reject a claim from someone simply because we think they may be biased (via their political/religious/social views, via their employment, etc), we are actually being illogical and committing a circumstantial ad hominem. Biased sources are capable of making true statements and presenting truthful evidence. By rejecting a claim because we believe the source may be biased, we are not allowing for the possibility that the person is saying something true. In cases of suspected bias, we should “suspend judgment” instead of rejecting the claim as false. In all three types of ad hominem above, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent’s argument.
Circular Reasoning: The circular reasoning fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer simply restates a point rather than applying evidence to support the claim.
Red Herring: fallacy committed when we go off topic to distract the audience from the original issue, to get the audience to either accept or reject a claim (because the audience does not realize that a new tangential issue has been raised).
Smokescreen: is a similar tactic, but instead of distracting by discussing one new topic, the person brings up many new issues to “mask” the original issue. We may not even remember what the original issue was in the presence of a smokescreen.
False Dilemma: (also called a false dichotomy) presents only two options (when really more than two exist, or at least there is no evidence of why these are the only two options), then eliminates one of those options, leaving us with the conclusion that we really have only one option. We often hear this fallacy presented in loose ways: “you’re either with us or against us” “of course we must do this action; after all, we can’t do nothing!”
Misplacing the Burden of Proof: occurs when the person who is responsible for providing evidence (the person making the claim/argument) instead shifts that responsibility to the opponent/listener/audience.
For example, “Yes, obviously it is important to get a college education. Can you give me one good reason why one should not go to college?” If one is making a claim that it is important to do something, then one has the responsibility to provide evidence for why it is important. In the above example, the speaker should be providing evidence for why going to college is important. But notice here, the speaker shifts that responsibility to the listener, and demands that the listener disprove the claim.
Begging the Question/Circular Reasoning: in its simplest form occurs when the speaker pretends to present evidence for a conclusion, but really the premise and the conclusion are just saying the same thing (using synonyms).
For example, “It is immoral to keep a dog chained up in a yard like that. Why? Because chaining an animal is wrong.” No evidence has been presented here. “Immoral” and “wrong” mean the same thing in this context. The speaker has just repeated the same idea over, while pretending that a premise with evidence has been provided.
