Kim Wells
Lesson Plan

For an "Intro to Composition & Rhetoric" class

Using Advertisements to Show Effective & Ineffective Argument Strategies

1-2 day activity (2 days if you use follow up lesson). Includes opportunities for students to write as well as discuss.

Objectives

Discussion & demonstration of logos, ethos, pathos and logical fallacies.
Awareness of audience & context for arguments & argumentative failures from lack of awareness.

Prerequisites

Students should have read a discussion of types of logical fallacies, ethos, pathos & logos, as well as have a basic understanding of audience considerations for arguments.

Supplies

Teacher: 10 transparencies-- advertisements demonstrating logos, ethos & pathos, as well as a number of logical fallacies, "reaches," and conscious manipulations of audience expectations.

Student: Have students, as homework, bring in an ad that they think uses one of these strategies.

Lesson:

Briefly review/define the types of argument fallacies, logos, ethos and pathos. Write definitions on the board and tell students to take notes... make the definitions you write very concise and simple. You can ask students to call out their definitions of the terms, which you then write on the board, but have you own definitions ready as well because theirs are potentially less-complete or shakily understood.

 

Define types of logical fallacies:

Ad Hominem (to the man) -- a personal attack on someone whose view differs from the arguer. Political campaigns often use this strategy quite effectively, and in some ways, it is the "opposite" of the argument from authority.

Appeal to false authority-- Citing an "authority" in one field as one in another field. Persuasion to "buy" a product based on well-known people or celebrities (the ads with Maya Angelou and John Lovitz are both these types of 'fallacies').

Begging the question-- your argument "assumes" what actually needs to be proven. "Everyone knows that college is too expensive because it costs more than it is worth." Circular logic.

Jumping to conclusions, hasty generalization-- writer draws conclusion based on insufficient evidence. "I hired a certain person from "X" university, and he/she was a jerk, all people from that university are jerks."

Post Hoc, Ego Propter Hoc: or false conclusions-- after this, therefore because of this... Confuse cause with coincidence. "Every time I wash my car it rains, therefore, it is my fault it rained today"

Slippery Slope-- Often used as a type of fear tactic: if X happens, then Y for sure... when you say "If we let them make a law on gun control, the next thing we know, there will be another fascist regime like Nazi Germany"

After you have discussed these fallacies, as well as ethos, pathos & logos, then use the transparencies to illustrate these types of fallacies, as well as discussing what kinds of appeals they are using. The transparencies are also excellent for context and audience considerations-- all of them are from People magazine-- so would they be appropriate for readers from other demographics (say Seventeen magazine).

Ads

Maya Angelou's "Aetna" ad: The ad features "Dr." Maya Angelou discussing how since "knowledge is power" then it is important to know that Heart disease kills women. This argument is a number of things-- it is, for one, an logical fallacy of false authority. It's main appeal is to ethos-- Angelou is a well-known advocate for women's issues but she is a writer, and her "Dr" is an honorary Ph.D.-- not a Medical Degree. Since the ad is actually one for an HMO (Aetna) then what is it selling, and why does it use those tactics to sell it? Once you discuss this, you realize a hidden persuasive tactic-- pathos-- the emotion of identification with women's issues and "hero worship." AUDIENCE: women who are moderately well-read ( so they would know who Angelou is). Oprah viewers.

PUR water filters: Ad features two vials of water and a child getting nice (presumably clean) water from a PUR filter. It's appeal is to two things: logos in the obvious logic of wanting clean water with no chemicals in it... but it also appeals to your pathos-- the emotion of allowing your cute, wide eyed child to drink "pesticides, lead, and herbicides" that are assumed to be in non filtered water. The logical fallacy: a hasty generalization that PUR filtered water will be safer for you child to drink. Audience: Moms.

Sears Home Central: Uses ethos-- the name Sears is trusted. Also uses an assumed logos-- it is clearly logical to use a company and product that has so many repair specialists, and major brand appliances. It also has a hidden persuasive technique in pathos-- the annoyance you would feel if your important appliance broke-- here Sears is to "guarantee" that your life will not be complicated that way. Audience: Presumably, stay at home moms. Logical fallacy: Hasty generalization, possibly a begging the question.

Merriam-Webster's "Collegiate" Dictionary: Uses pathos (humor) as well as ethos (the name of Webster's dictionary as an authority "the first word in dictionaries"). Audience: baby-boomer parents of older teens. Definitely not aimed at the teens themselves, in fact, the humor of the ad might be a bit offensive to the teen, which is part of the pathos. Logical fallacy: hasty generalization: just because your 'graduate' gets this dictionary does not guarantee any success. Also begs the question-- assumes that high school graduates are less mature than their parents.

Hershey's chocolate ad: uses pathos (humor) and ethos (the name Hershey's as an authority in chocolate). Argues that since the tree has a technologically jargoned "love declaration" that change is bad. (In other words, tradition, or a chocolate candy that hasn't changed in 100 years is good). Fallacy: Ad Hominem: the attack that just because "the person" is an Internet geek they aren't truly in love, that their love is not as lasting as it would have been at one time. Hidden problem: the Email addresses are not real-- any "insiders" would know this but the intended audience of baby boomers and/or technophobes would not know this. Begs the question-- needs to prove that change is bad (because it ain't necessarily so).

People ad: title "It's Why We're Needed" appeals to pathos-- children crying, refugees from Kosovo. Has a list of affiliates who can "help" the suffering of these kinds of kids. BUT is People really known as a humanitarian magazine? So, this ad is a false authority and it is a bit overly manipulative in using pathos to sell an entertainment magazine. It pretends to be interested in human rights and international "relief" while it's selling celebrities.

Ford Windstar ad: title "Our star report" uses: pathos (humor in the implied pun on the infamous "Starr report." The ad shows an official looking government report from the NHTSA on the Windstar's performance in safety tests. Also uses some ethos in the assumption that the NHTSA is a government agency that will be an authority on safety. Is there a logical fallacy? Perhaps they are playing with "false authority" a little bit, and that's what we find funny?

LIFE ad (advertising a nonprofit org that educates about insurance) Clearly an appeal to pathos and the tragic. The little girl is barely holding in tears and the text accompanying the ad describes the very sudden death of a young (33) father. When we consider who the ad's audience is, we find another persuasive technique-- fear. The ad is written, mostly, for young mothers and fathers-- the types of people who often do not buy life insurance because there really is less of a need for it. So the market, in the guise of educating people about their "true need" for life insurance, it is selling a product through fear & manipulation. The logical fallacy? Hasty generalization and/or post hoc, ego propter hoc (to an extent).... That buying life insurance when you're young will pay off because "we'll still have the things he worked for."

Nivea Visage ad: Appeal to logos-- with its pseudo scientific terminology, and the idea of scientific breakthroughs that will "stop wrinkles" the ad wants to imply that your deductive reasoning makes it clear that you should use this product. It "guarantees" your satisfaction "or money back" so that you will believe that the product is backed, as well, by a reliable "name" brand (i.e., ethos). Logical fallacy? Post hoc ego propter hoc does it really "follow" that using this product can guarantee any kind of "satisfaction" at stopping a natural process everyone goes through?

Yellow Pages ad (with John Lovitz-- from his pathological liar character). Appeals to pathos/humor and deliberately uses a logical fallacy-- false authority. This is a clever ad because it appeals to the reader's knowledge of the fallacy in saying "look at us, we're making fun of the way people in ads claim anything." Do we think that they are apologizing, though, for using this fallacy, or do we realize that in using it, and pretending to be conscious of the use, we aren't getting the same basic effect? Finally, are the yellow pages something that really needs to be sold? Why are they spending the money?

Virginia Slims ad: "personals." This ad appeals to a number of persuasive techniques-- the first and most obvious is humor because of the pictures of the man and the "savvy" women who know better. The "viewer" is supposed to want to identify with the skeptical women and want to be "just like them." There's also the hidden appeal to fear in the cigarette's name (an age old thing) women who smoke THIS cigarette will be what? SLIM. There is also an appeal to our logos-- the logic that we believe that logically, people who need personal ads are "losers" and the ad makes us happy because our logic is confirmed. BUT the fallacy is what? Ad Hominem-- a personal insult on the men who aren't reading this magazine in the first place (the demographic is women). Also, the ad comes to a hasty generalization that: If men were really like their personal ads, (Hidden warrant: men lie about themselves in personal ads-- another hidden warrant is that the Mac Daddy is 'better' and more desirable than the Urkel type) Then they wouldn't need personal ads. (I.E. if men really were a Mac Daddy, then they'd have a date). Finally, it begs the question when it assumes the guy in the blue jacket is less desirable than the other. (In reality, the man is exactly the same model with superficial changes having been made to his appearance).

LESSON NOTES:

How long you spend on the transparencies should depend upon how many ads the students brought in themselves. If they brought in a number of good ads, then allow them to get into groups (of three or four) where they discuss their own ads. They should decide what the warrants, persuasive techniques & fallacies are for their ads, then write a brief description of each ad. Then, they will turn those discussions (and ads) in before the end of class. If students did not bring many ads in, then take the whole class period to discuss your own ads. The discussion should be very lively, and students enjoy talking about the ads & issues surrounding them. Be careful to make sure to connect the discussion to techniques to watch for in other people's arguments as well as their own.

2nd Day: A possible tie in for this activity is to have students watch the video presentation (available in the library) Still Killing Us Softly (we also have Killing Us Softly, but it uses much older ads that probably won't be familiar to the students, and is usually only available as a 16mm filmstrip, so is more difficult). This video shows ads with "harmful" representations of women, children & some men. The video is engaging, and will take about 3/4 of a class period, will be an introduction to gender critiques, and also encourages the audience to think critically of the advertisements that surround them every day. After the students watch the video, they should write a 1-2 page review that describes the techniques used in the video to persuade the audience.