Diet and exercise assistant desktop version 6.0

Examine written and visual advertisements.

Select five advertisements that demonstrate the use of five different fallacies outlined in the University of Phoenix Material: Common List of Logical Fallacies.

Write a 350-word summary for each of your selected advertisements in which you address the following: in apa format

Summarize the content of the advertisement.
Identify the fallacy portrayed by the advertisement.
Describe how the fallacy is used as a persuasive argument.
Explain why you think that the creators of the advertisement used the fallacy to promote this product or concept.

Common Logical Fallacies

The following is a list of common fallacies. Some are covered in the textbook, and others are introduced by the faculty member. Use this document for your reference.

1. Ad hominem, or attacking the person: This fallacy involves attacking the arguer rather than his or her argument. Consider the following example: John's objections to capital punishment carry no weight because he is a convicted felon.

Note. Saying something negative about someone is not automatically ad hominem. If you are discussing a person—such as a politician—criticizing him or her does not mean you have created an ad hominem fallacy.

2. Ad ignorantium, or appeal to ignorance: This fallacy, sometimes called the burden of proof fallacy, involves arguing on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven; if you can't prove that something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa. Consider the following example: You can't prove the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist, so there must be one.

3. Ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority: This fallacy involves trying to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. This often involves an authority in one field speaking about a subject outside of his or her expertise. A sports star with little car expertise who endorses a car and the actor on a TV commercial who says "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV” are examples of this fallacy.

4. Affirming the consequent: This fallacy involves an invalid form of the conditional argument in which the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. Consider the following example: If he wants to get that job, he must know Spanish. He knows Spanish, so he will get the job.

5. Amphiboly: This is a fallacy of syntactical ambiguity in which the position of words in a sentence or the juxtaposition of two sentences conveys a mistaken idea. This fallacy is like equivocation except that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase; it is created by word placement. Consider the following example: Jim said he saw Jenny walk her dog through the window. She should be reported for animal abuse.

6. Appeal to emotion: In this fallacy, the arguer uses emotional appeals rather than logic to persuade the listener. This fallacy may appeal to various emotions, including pride, pity, fear, hate, vanity, or sympathy. Generally, the issue is oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer. Consider the following example: An activist group which uses horrific or disturbing imagery unrelated to their cause.

7. Argument from analogy, or false analogy: This is an unsound form of the inductive argument in which an argument relies heavily on a weak analogy. Consider the following example: This must be a great car because, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in Switzerland.

8. Begging the question: This is an argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premises. It is also referred to as a circular argument. Consider the following example: Of course the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God says so in the Bible.

9. Slippery slope: This fallacy involves a line of reasoning that argues against a course of action because it assumes that if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to an assumed conclusion. This fallacy uses the valid form of hypothetical syllogism, but uses guesswork for the premise. Consider the following example: We cannot allow students any voice in decision making on campus; if we do, it won't be long before they are in total control.