Inductive fallacy: "For every woman who says no to Botox." Induction involves generalization from exprience or experiment. Whoever rejects Botox, doens't have to accept this product. They might not need either of these, nor the Botox or this skin product.
OK, h@pP!Ly, I'm with you so far, but I could defend the ad by claiming that it doesn't mean that everyone who rejects botox will use the product, only that the product is intended for their use or should suit them (for various reasons).
I think the faulty generalization will work here, though, and that if we dig, we'll find more.
This is also an appeal to popularity - the ad states "For every woman that says no to botox" which is a claim that you can get the same results from this product as you would from botox. It also stats "correcting serum for lines/wrinkles..." There is also an appeal to nature - the ad is implying that this product can give you the same results without any invasive medical procedures, such as injections. The appeal to popularity is targeting those individuals who either dont like botox (either the injections or the concept itself) or cannot afford it. I see a hidden "if you use this you will achieve the same results and no one else will know that you are using anything." In addition I see the appeal to nature as saying "you can have the same results by just using this creme - everyone will see the results but everyone will think it is natural because you dont show the signs of botox." Additionally, the term "correcting serum" is a quasi science. The use of this term infers that some scientific break through will "correct" what is wrong. Everyone ages, everyone wrinkles eventually (some quicker than others) it is not something that is "wrong" and needs "correcting" is is a part of life and for the most part usually does not interfere with a person's life other than appearance. I also see an "appeal to fear" - if you don't use this product or botox you will end up with wrinkles and your skin will be in a state of disrepair. I also see a "false dilemma" fallacy - "You either use botox or you need to use this", while "or" is not used in the wordage it is implied by the "For EVERY woman that says no to Botox" statement which doesn't state "for those women that want to do something other than Botox" this leaves only one or the other as solutions.
Additionally, there are other solutions available other than this product or botox. One could use certain vitamins, one could let the wrinkles run their course, one could have plastic surgery. There is almost an endless amount of possibilities. While BC states that he could argue that "..that it doesn't mean that everyone who rejects botox will use the product, only that the product is intended for their use or should suit them (for various reasons)." But I would point out that it does not say "for SOME women who say no to botox" it does use the term "EVERY" which indicates all of those not using botox. I don't see that it is leaving any room for other products. I see it as either botox or this product. I could be wrong in this analogy but I see the ad implying one or the other. Of course the consumer is left to their own decision, but this ad leans heavily on scare tactics.
Also, the use of the (CP+) in parenthesis supports the quasi science fallacy. I have no idea what "CP+" means but it looks scientific. I am not sure what it has to do with the product - it is shown in the ad but never explained. I see the "CP+" as a icon thrown on the page to give the ad some sort of validity as a scientific breakthrough.
5 comments:
Inductive fallacy: "For every woman who says no to Botox." Induction involves generalization from exprience or experiment. Whoever rejects Botox, doens't have to accept this product. They might not need either of these, nor the Botox or this skin product.
OK, h@pP!Ly, I'm with you so far, but I could defend the ad by claiming that it doesn't mean that everyone who rejects botox will use the product, only that the product is intended for their use or should suit them (for various reasons).
I think the faulty generalization will work here, though, and that if we dig, we'll find more.
This is also an appeal to popularity - the ad states "For every woman that says no to botox" which is a claim that you can get the same results from this product as you would from botox. It also stats "correcting serum for lines/wrinkles..." There is also an appeal to nature - the ad is implying that this product can give you the same results without any invasive medical procedures, such as injections. The appeal to popularity is targeting those individuals who either dont like botox (either the injections or the concept itself) or cannot afford it. I see a hidden "if you use this you will achieve the same results and no one else will know that you are using anything." In addition I see the appeal to nature as saying "you can have the same results by just using this creme - everyone will see the results but everyone will think it is natural because you dont show the signs of botox." Additionally, the term "correcting serum" is a quasi science. The use of this term infers that some scientific break through will "correct" what is wrong. Everyone ages, everyone wrinkles eventually (some quicker than others) it is not something that is "wrong" and needs "correcting" is is a part of life and for the most part usually does not interfere with a person's life other than appearance. I also see an "appeal to fear" - if you don't use this product or botox you will end up with wrinkles and your skin will be in a state of disrepair. I also see a "false dilemma" fallacy - "You either use botox or you need to use this", while "or" is not used in the wordage it is implied by the "For EVERY woman that says no to Botox" statement which doesn't state "for those women that want to do something other than Botox" this leaves only one or the other as solutions.
Additionally, there are other solutions available other than this product or botox. One could use certain vitamins, one could let the wrinkles run their course, one could have plastic surgery. There is almost an endless amount of possibilities. While BC states that he could argue that "..that it doesn't mean that everyone who rejects botox will use the product, only that the product is intended for their use or should suit them (for various reasons)." But I would point out that it does not say "for SOME women who say no to botox" it does use the term "EVERY" which indicates all of those not using botox. I don't see that it is leaving any room for other products. I see it as either botox or this product. I could be wrong in this analogy but I see the ad implying one or the other. Of course the consumer is left to their own decision, but this ad leans heavily on scare tactics.
Also, the use of the (CP+) in parenthesis supports the quasi science fallacy. I have no idea what "CP+" means but it looks scientific. I am not sure what it has to do with the product - it is shown in the ad but never explained. I see the "CP+" as a icon thrown on the page to give the ad some sort of validity as a scientific breakthrough.
Post a Comment