# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryjpbd4D4bg

The commercial above has three different type of fallacies. Many questions, the first fallacy, introduces the product, then intrigues the audience as to why one of the actors keep asking questions, because their questions makes the product appear as special and new. This fallacy leads to the next one which is red herring. The red herring fallacy then distracts the audience with a catchphrase and a dance, so they become more focused on the character and less on the actual product. Finally, the commercial continues to keep the emotion fallacy throughout the entire commercial because at first the questions confused most of the audience, however their emotions changed to happiness when the actor began to sing and dance. These three fallacies intertwine with each other, in order to persuade the audience to eventually buy the product. This made me laugh.

# data[].attributes.body
The commercial contains many scenes with children and Micheal Jordan playing basketball at a park. While playing they can be seen sipping a Gatorade sports drink. Throughout the commercial, the repetition of the lyric, "If I can be like Mike", is constantly played in order to persuade the viewer to believe if they drink Gatorade you will play like Micheal Jordan. Micheal Jordan serves as an authority figure to support and advertise the notion of acquiring his basketball skills with a Gatorade sports drink. The children appeal to the audience emotion to cause nostalgia of being a kid with the dream of playing pro sports. Overall, this commercial uses both an authority figure and the audience's emotion to advertise their sports drink and persuade you into buying a cold Gatorade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Be Like Mike Gatorade Commercial (ORIGINAL)

# data[].attributes.body
The Skittles commerical are known to be weird, like the princess one. The two fallacies that I saw are, false analogy and red herring. There is false anaology from the start when he speaker said to push the button so you can go somewhere, you really aren't going anywhere and its purpose to be there is to entertained and distracted what is being advertised. Adding onto false anaology, is where the princess believes that if she kisses the button, she'll get a prince. Though in reality, the button does nothing and the princess looks dumb. The other fallacy was red herring, which is spotted throughout the entire commerical because it does not talk about skittles at all, no information was given. The purpose of the fallacies were to advertise skittles, so if a consumers sees a princess, they'll be reminded of skitlles and would want to purchase them. Being aware of the fallacies and others, allow you to see like the "real deal," of an article or commerical, like the skittles one, where they avoid giving information about the product but rather entertain to give the candy, skittles, a memory in someone's mind.

# data[].attributes.body
The hasty generalization fallacy as well as the authority fallacy are used in this super bowl add for M&M candy. The commercial implies that it is okay to do anything you want to others as long as you can apologize by giving them M&Ms. In other words if you do something bad to someone, they will forgive you if you apologize with M&Ms. For example, in the commercial the actors ask for forgiveness with M&Ms after kicking a person's seat purposely while on an airplane, "mansplaining" a topic, causing an explosive gender reveal, confessing one's sins, calling a woman by her unfortunate name, and eating one of the M&Ms spokes-candies' friends. The ask for forgiveness with the candy suggests that these actions are rational as long as you apologize with M&Ms. This super bowl add also uses the authority fallacy by using Dan Levy as the closing or reinforcing character for their implied claim. Since Levy is an actor and comedian the creators of the add expect viewers to trust him and perform the same actions, as he does.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dan Levy starring in M&M's Super Bowl 2021 commercial (M&M's Chocolate)

Sorry for making you upset. Bag of M&M's for your troubles?

Dan Levy had an eventful weekend. One day he's "Saturday Night Live's" host and the next day he's a Super Bowl ad star.

He starred in this M&M's commercial that hints that you can do almost any and everything - as long as you have a bag of M&M's to ask for forgiveness.

Apologies included kicking someone's airplane seat on purpose, "mansplaining," calling someone a "Karen" and of course, holding a messy and explosive gender reveal party.
Watch the commercial below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
M&M's Super Bowl ad suggests you can apologize for anything with candy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sorry for making you upset. Bag of M&M's for your troubles? Dan Levy had an eventful weekend. One day he's "Saturday Night Live's" host and the next day he's a Super Bowl ad star. He starred in this M&M's commercial that hints that you can do almost any and everything - as long as you have a bag of M&M's to ask for forgiveness.

# data[].attributes.body
pantene with stacy london is a commercial which mosly targets women that want healthier hair and it uses 2 fallacies the appeal to authority and no true scotsman fallacie ,they showcase the "awards " and experts say that pantene should be your choice for healthier hair. And it uses a celebrity figure to promote their product in more crafty manner.

# data[].attributes.body
This commercial uses the authority fallacy. They are using BTS for their commercial because they are known worldwide. In the commercial Samsung is promoting their new phone but they are specifically focusing on the camera's quality. They are using BTS as an authority figure by showing that the camera's quality is so good that BTS even uses the phone to record their concerts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G: BTS Epic Onstage - 8K Video Snap (Full ver.) | Samsung

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/anKkX1wvgBw
This commercial targets the general public to send the message that individuals should choose Time Warner's Tv instead of Direct Tv. Throughout the ad they disclose Direct Tv charges more for HD TV than Time Warner's Tv leaving one with less money for dog food. In this ad they utilize the ad hominem fallacy. The ad hominem fallacy occurs when instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, one irrelevantly attacks the person or aspect of the person who is making the argument. The directors demonstrate this fallacy in the ad when they target Direct Tv as “puppy haters”. Throughout the ad, the directors do not elaborate on how they are better than Direct Tv, therefore it does not address the argument being made. The ad simply only attacks Direct Tv on the fact that they “hate puppies” rather than their service displayed. Not only does this ad demonstrate an ad hominem fallacy it also discloses another fallacy which would be the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy occurs when a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable ending. The slippery slope fallacy is demonstrated in the ad when they stress the fact that due to Direct Tv’s high pricing will cause an individual to not have enough money for dog food. To conclude, these fallacies are utilized in the ad in order to persuade the audience to choose Time Warner's Tv instead of Direct Tv.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2008 Time Warner Cable Direct TV Hates Puppies

# data[].attributes.body
The Adidas "Break Free" commercial revolves around an elderly man desire to relive his young years through running. It begins by appealing to the deep fear of loved ones forgetting them in the retirement home. Soon after, the focus and emphasis goes to the Adidas shoes that symbolize freedom. This commercial strongly appeals to the emotions of the audience resulting in sympathy and understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
The "Appeal to Authority" exists as the most obvious fallacy in the Super Bowl 2021 commercial "Drake From State Farm". The fallacy holds that because someone in a position of assumed authority says something, it must be true. The commercial features: football quarterbacks Patrick Mahomes (Kansas City Chiefs) and Aaron Rodgers (Green Bay Packers), alongside comedic actor Paul Rudd and famous rapper Drake. All these people are well-liked by the general public and are in the commercial to persuade its audience to use State farm. However, they are not professionals with knowledge about insurance companies and there is no data backing up their claims. The commercial also includes a "Red Herring", where attempts are made to distract the audience by invoking something that remains irrelevant to the topic under discussion. The celebrities as well as the setting taking place in the behind the scenes of shooting a commercial are there to distract the audience from the fact that the commercial doesn't take steps into explaining why its audience should switch to State Farm, not providing data or reasoning.

# data[].attributes.body
This commercial advertises for a Sprint phone commercial. In order to get their message across that Sprint is the number one phone company in America they use ad hominem fallacies. Ad hominem is a tactic that most companies use to criticize their competitors. Sprint targets Verizon by utilizing their old spokes person and mentioning that he switched companies. Another fallacy that the commercial uses is authority fallacies. Authority fallacies display a famous or popular person to sell an idea. For the simple reason that because of their status their ideas are true. Sprint uses Paul Marcarelli, a famous spokesperson in order to be able to give credibility to their argument. Due to the fact that Paul used to work for Verizon and determine for experience which company is the number one in America. Determining to their audiences that Sprint has the better services.

# data[].attributes.body
In the following John Lewis commercial, two different fallacies are seen in use during the ad. To begin, the commercial uses an appeals to the viewer's sense of loneliness to make them empathize with the old man on the moon. The old man's situation ties perfectly with the company message, "Show someone they're loved this Christmas" prompting viewers to want to buy something from John Lewis in order to assure nobody feel as lonely as the man on the moon did on Christmas day. The somber music and greyed out color pallet also works to appeal to the sense of loneliness as the gloomy setting prompts the viewer to further fall under the impression that they must buy something to prevent such an unrealistic situation. The ad's use of scare tactics also makes viewers anxious about skipping out on buying presents this year. By presenting the old man as lonely and brought to tears by the sight of a present, the viewer will want to buy presents in order to prevent any of their family members feel the same way. Such a tactic works well to make an observer do a double take towards Christmas shopping and buy more as a result, with John Lewis being a primary option. Additionally, during the holidays, and Christmas in particular, the suicide rate around the world jumps around the world because of that loneliness that most people feel, possibly influencing one's belief. In general, the commercial does a fine job in appealing to a sense of loneliness and using scare tactics in order to convince viewer's to buy from the John Lewis brand this holiday season.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Lewis Christmas Ad 2015 Man on the Moon

# data[].attributes.body
https://youtu.be/47cAxRX3aDg

This commercial convinces the audience that they can save more money on insurance, no matter the time, if they apply to State Farm. This commercial distracts the audience from their actual product but to the humorous interaction between the wife, husband, and Jake from State Farm. In other words, this Red Herring does not include any information about their insurance, but instead manipulate the attention to the event. The commercial appeals to the audience's humor because of the fictitious scenario and becomes memorable in the viewer's memory. As example, I remember watching this commercial when I was young and growing older, I continue to view this State Farm commercial as iconic. The course of events that unfolds (slippery slope) in this commercial, leads to ridiculous outcomes with no evidence. The husband calls at 3am, waking the wife from her slumber. She investigates the noise and catches her husband on the phone. She assumes that the receiver of the call is a mistress and gets mad. She snatches the phone demanding who the speaker is, ignoring her husbands denial. The wife continues to presume that it is a mistress despite that the receiver of the call replies that he is a worker from State Farm. The entire scene is over exaggerated which entices the viewer to laugh. In learning about different fallacies in commercials and articles, my view has changed as I constantly notice how many fail to include detail of their product or point of view and target the audience's emotions or thinking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Farm® Commercial - State of Unrest (Jake).mp4

# data[].attributes.body
“And begins his after school program: playing video games, playing video games, and playing more video games” This quote is a circular argument because the author has already repeated his/her argument on games creating a circular argument. A circular argument is detrimental to arguments, it makes it seem like you as an author have no knowledge on your subject, and does not know how to support yourself.

“A student comes home from school at around three or four o’ clock in the afternoon, sets his bag aside, debates whether he should take a shower, definitely eats his lunch and begins his after school program: playing video games” This quote presents the hasty generalization fallacy, the author firstly generalizes only boys play video games, and secondly they generalize once a boy gets home all they do is eat and play video games which is hasty generalization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Take a look at today's generation. A student comes home from school at around three or four o'clock in the afternoon, sets his bag aside, debates whether he should take a shower, definitely eats his lunch, and begins his after school program: playing video games, playing video games, and playing more video games. Video games, unfortunately, have become an imperative part of the average teenager's life. Whether it's hours, day, or maybe even weeks, teenagers spend an excessive amount of time slaying monsters, killing zombies, or just shooting at each other's avatars for all time's sake. They lose track of time, deprive themselves of sleep, miss out on their homework, and deteriorate their health, all for the sake of the phenomenal world of 'Call of Duty' and fellow video games. A vast majority of the global population believes that playing video games can positively influence the lives of those who favor them, while others strongly disagree. Although playing video games may help stimulate and relax the brain, it is still considered detrimental because of the tendency to reward violence and create the ultimate aggressive player.

To begin with, playing video games often leads gamers to accept what is conventionally and ethically dismissed. Violent video games offer a profoundly aggressive and bloody atmosphere. They are simply based on the notion that killing others is a reward. Furthermore, they teach the players how to disrespect life by picking up a gun and shooting at people, and thus integrating into their lives the fact that violence is a social norm everybody praises. Moreover, certain games, such as GTA, school players about how crucial it is to disrespect authority by simply adding points for those who manage to escape the cops, or even shoot some. Such games brainwash teenagers to think that authority figures are the bad guys, when in the truth they're not. Thus, they no longer feel a sense of reverence for law enforces, or the law itself for that matter. David Greenfield, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Connecticut and founder of the Center for Internet and Technology Addiction argues that: "It (violent video games) conveys two things -- a lack of respect for human life and a desensitization to violent acts," "And it teaches them the skill set to enact the violent act with increased precision. And we call that entertainment.

Apart from the ethics, overexposure to violent video leads to the development of bad conflict resolution skills. Playing these games allows players to express their feelings, whether anger, pain, or pleasure, through hostility and aggression. Gamers only grow familiar to the violent approach of sorting out problems and lose the art of communication. Thus, they resort to physical abuse to show their friends or siblings that they are bothered or irked by them. Brad Bushman, a psychologist at Ohio State University, was co-author of a study that examined 380 studies on video games; he stated, "The results show that playing violent video games increases angry thoughts, aggressive behavior, and decreases helping behavior, empathy and compassion for others." In another study, 161 college students were randomly assigned to play one of several violent games, neutral games, or pro-social games (in which helpful behavior was required). After playing, the students completed a task in which they could either help or hurt another student. Those who had played the violent games were more hurtful to other students, whereas those who had played the pro-social games were more helpful.

It is claimed that video games are mental stimulators that help sharpen the mind and relieve it of anxiety and stress. This is an absolute truth; however, playing video games has also proven to reduce certain cognitive brain functions. Certain studies have focused on how specific brain regions of players of violent games respond under varying circumstances. For instance, Rene Weber and his colleagues asked 13 experienced gamers to play a violent game while undergoing FMRI brain scan (functional magnetic resonance imaging). By imaging players' brain activity before, during and after each violent encounter, the investigators found that immediately before firing a weapon, players displayed greater activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. This area involves cognitive control and planning, among other functions. While firing a weapon and shortly afterward, players showed less activity in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (RACC) and amygdala. Because interaction between those brain areas is associated with resolving emotional conflict, their decreased functioning could indicate a suppression of the emotional response to witnessing the results of taking violent actions. Thus, the greater the experience with violent media, the lower was the activation of brain areas for thinking, learning, reasoning and emotional control.

In conclusion, video games have become an indispensable part of this modern technological era, yet they persist to be deleterious to whoever latches onto them. Unfortunately adolescents do not perceive that they have been caught up in a current of false entertainment, and it might just be too late to get out ... or is it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take a look at today's generation. A student comes home from school at around three or four o'clock in the afternoon, sets his bag aside, debates whether he should take a shower, definitely eats his lunch, and begins his after school program: playing video games, playing video games, and playing more video games.

# data[].attributes.headline
Naydelin Quintero, 2014 Chevy Commercial - Maddie

# data[].attributes.subject
Naydelin Quintero, 2014 Chevy Commercial - Maddie

# data[].attributes.body
Chevrolet's promotion of their new model car in 2014 deludes the viewer through their commercial by relating to emotion and the false analogy fallacy. The commercial begins with a solemn woman and her dog, Maddie, in a dismal room and a cold table illuminated by a single lamp,
as she caresses her beloved best friend, this entices the underlying premonition of death through an infamous visual of gloom and the aid of a melancholy tune. As the owner strokes Maddie's fur she reminisces to an early memory of petting her insinuating a happier time and healthier version of themselves. The commercial then pulls the viewer into memories of the heartwarming journey the two soulmates share which enacts empathy in the viewer and a reluctance towards seeing their last goodbyes again, even if already witnessed, thus relates to the anguish of detachment we all face and depletes our blissful ignorance of death as we see their lives from beginning to end. Simultaneously, subtle glances of a car can be seen in these memories, the 2014 Chevy car, then the false analogy fallacy occurs, through the most defining moment, when the woman's childhood flashback presents her meeting Maddie as a puppy, the commercial intervenes with the quote, "A best friend for life's journey," as the two pairs head back to the car, implying that because of this car they were able to meet and that the bestfriend in this scenario becomes the car and not Maddie since the car follows throughout the memories and intertwined the lives of these seemingly bestfriends to begin with. The commercial's analogy of the car being a bestfriend enacts irony and almost disbelief because it disregards the time between Maddie and her owner and steals Maddie's well-deserved spotlight that the viewer witnesses. The commercial transforms the car into a catalyst for happiness and a "bestfriend" and compares this companionship to man and dog, an emotionally and soul-bonded relationship, reciprocated through Maddie and her owner, clearly two incomparable things.

-"A best friend for life's journey"

# data[].attributes.body
This commercial was made to persuade the audience to stop smoking. They achieve this by a mom leaving his son alone in a place that looks to be an airport. There were quite a few fallacies the big one was emotion we all have experienced the feeling of being lost and alone. And in this video once the mom left the little boy by himself he felt scared and didn’t know what to do. The second fallacy I noticed was no true Scotsman, just because the mom left the little boy alone they automatically assume that the mom going to die at an early age if she’s a smoker. However they didn’t really demonstrate where the mom left and what she was going to do. To conclude I also feel like they used a bit of the old hominem fallacy because they are pretty much saying if you smoke your going to be a bad parent and leave your kid alone.

# data[].attributes.body
In this commercial for the Air Jordan 5 we see "Mars Blackmon" ask Michael Jordan what makes him the best player in the league and then MJ proceeds to neglect the questions but then Mars begins repeating that it must be the shoes that make him so great, by Mars doing this it's seen as a Argument by Repetition Fallacy.  This is done for the viewer to be persuaded that it must be shoes and they should buy a pair to be just as good as him.

# data[].attributes.body
This Nike Basketball commercial features the famous basketball player Lebron James who stars as every person seen in the commercial.  The commercial does not promote Nike's quality or style, instead it humors the audience in order to leave a mark on the audience's mind.  Nike's popularity enables Nike to not have to argue for why their shoes and apparel are superior.   Nike just has to be in people's mind next time they go shopping; this commercial distracts people from the real argument of "Who makes the best basketball gear?". The commercial has nothing to do with Nike shoes but still causes the audience to want Nike because of the positive memory it gives the audience. The use of the red herring fallacy helped make this commercial timeless and still makes people laugh to this day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lebron James Nike Commercial - Swimming Pool

# data[].attributes.body
The Time Warner Cable commercial has a message to the general public stating that their low prices demonstrate that they love puppies. They call out other cable companies such as Direct TV by accusing them of hating puppies by charging so much money for cable TV, since all that extra money could be used for dog food. This is a clear example of ad hominem fallacy since instead of addressing someone's argument, they irrelevantly attack the company who is making the argument. Time Warner Cable does not show in their commercial concrete evidence of why their cable TV company is better and instead make inane accusations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2008 Time Warner Cable Direct TV Hates Puppies

# data[].attributes.body
This commercial was made by ADT security service to persuade people with families or citizens who do not feel safe in their home to buy their product. They achieve this by showing a family planning to go to sleep and putting their children to sleep without the parents feeling worried about their safety because of the product. Emotional Fallacy is used in the commercial by the company using a family to use their product, making us think about our family. In the end of the commercial we can hear “armed” and “safe”.

# data[].attributes.body
The commercial above contains a couple of fallacies. The first fallacy that can be discovered is Logical Fallacy. Logical Fallacy can be seen when Betty White enjoys a snickers bar, which tricks your mind into wanting to eat one as well. Even though logically you won't transform back back into "Mike" after being tackled in the game like Betty White after you eat the Snickers bar. As well as Mike playing better than he did when he was 'Betty White'. Another fallacy is Hasty Generalisation. This fallacy is seen when the commercial encourages consumers to purchase the candy with the hopes of curing your hunger like the commercial states, but ultimately a Snickers bar will not cure your hunger.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Snickers Commercial - Football - You are not you when you are hungry

# data[].attributes.body
The commercial utilizes two major fallacies being  the appeal to emotion fallacy, and the Authoritative fallacy. The main purpose of the commercial is to persuade its audience, the citizens of the United States, to participate in the election by voting. The commercial presents various celebrities and famous actors such as Robert Downey Jr. to convey the importance of voting. In order to bring more emphasis to their message they use repetitive editing on specific phrases or words such as on “important” and “register”. The commercial appeals to the emotions of the viewers by having famous role models ask rhetorical questions about dangerous situations and issues that affect their families, country, and communities that are important to them. Then they make the audience feel included in these big issues by offering a solution in which they can be part of, instructing them to “go to save the day.com”. This also gives the audience a sense of heroic responsibility. After the commercial addresses heavy topics that worry numerous individuals, the commercial utilizes humor to ease its audience; it addresses a humorous reward affirming that if you “help protect this country  from fear and ignorance” that, “Mark Ruffalo will do a nude scene in his next movie”.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Robert Downey Jr - Save The Day  - Vote!

# data[].attributes.body
There are two fallacies that can easily be found in the commercial are Authority Appeal and Red Herring. The most obvious fallacy seen is Authority appeal. While audiences may adore the artist Pitbull, he has no real authority on the quality of Pepsi. Furthermore, Pepsi only had Pitbull appear on the commercial because it can persuade fans of his to go out and buy the carbonated drink. The next fallacy seen is Red Herring. The commercial distracts the audience from the real questions that can be asked by the audience with tactics such as dancing, music, and having celebrities praise the drink. This commercial gives no real information about the drink but makes one think they’ll have as much fun as seen in the video by drinking Pepsi.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pitbull Pepsi - Downtown Miami, FL Commercial

# data[].attributes.body
A fallacy found in this ad for Planter's peanuts is the red hearing fallacy. It completely ignores anything about the peanuts and instead distracts us with a vibrant and unique setting in the dessert, a very well known and groovy song, and the death of a beloved mascot, Mr.Peanut. Not once does the commercial talk about the product directly. Another fallacy was appeal to pity( appeal to emotion), for when Mr.Peanut dies it marks a sad moment which we are supposed to feel pity, instead of persuading us with facts about the product, the company uses emotion such as pity and humor to persuade the consumer into buying the product.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mr. Peanut dies in new Planters commercial

# data[].attributes.body
This sprite ad is not a typical soda commercial. This commercial targets every single one of its viewers. Suggesting to every single viewer to hold on to their dreams and to pursue them. This video perfectly embodies the fallacy of a ¨red herring¨ where the creator attempt to distract the audience by evoking something that is irrelevant to the main topic. Throughout the ad there are many people being shown in different environments and scenarios. They are shown doing what they are most passionate about, and in doing so, they are trying to ¨hold fast on to dreams.¨ One does not correlate following your dreams with a lemon and lime-flavored soft drink. One correlates with getting encouraged to follow your dreams to someone who represents wisdom, love, or support. In this aspect, Sprite is representing that support and love. Another fallacy represented is appeal to pity. Appeal to emotion is characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument. In this case, the viewer is being manipulated to believe that Sprite as a company truly does care about an individual to pursue their dreams and goals. Influencing the audience to buy their product because they will feel a sense of support. Towards the end of the video it states, ¨never stop dreaming.¨ Sprite believes in their viewers, so their viewers should believe in them.

Regarding on how I feel about fallacies in this topic, I believe it was very beautifully worded and created. It was a smart idea to chose such a wide range of viewers. Anyone can look at this ad and feel inspired. Fallacies in general are very interesting, it gives you a better understanding of what creators want you to feel or grasp.

# data[].attributes.body
The type of fallacy that this commercial shows would be the slippery slope fallacy. In the beginning of the commercial we could see two old men ranting about the new taco clamming that it's a "gateway breakfast" , and not really talking about the food in general. One of the men claimed that one day its the taco the next day it's loitering, while the other man claimed that it would lead to them growing a pony tail. This shows the slippery slope fallacy because a waffle taco won't lead to a person growing a pony tail or loitering.

# data[].attributes.body
The Australian Heinz company created an animated commercial pertaining to their own canned beans product. The commercial reveals a male who goes by the name of Geoff, the first scene illustrates his childhood through multiple picture frames on the wall, showing his obsession with beans, which quickly switches to his present day self where he enters a Heinz company building, applying to a job. Geoff gets a job at Heinz in order to create the perfect can of beans, however because he works there he soon meets a woman who he creates another can of beans for which progresses their relationship leading to their marriage as well as having children, eventually leading to the final scene where Geoff has grown old with his children and wife, this representation of the slippery slope fallacy implies to the audience that if we were to work at Heinz company to create beans, we would all meet our significant others and have a future with them, which is a general goal for everybody in this world. In addition, the red herring fallacy, which throughout the commercial we are never told the taste of the beans or the reason as to why they would be better compared to other companies beans, instead we are shown the life Geoff creating a bond with this fictional character as we watch their life pass by in minutes which relates to ethos. The audience creates an emotional bond with the fictional character and takes an interest as to their obsession which in this case being beans trusting their belief of Heinz beans being superior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heinz Beanz. A Can Size for Every Aussie!

# data[].attributes.body
In this commercial I was able to find two fallacies. To begin with, it creates a false analogy that when you drink Coca Cola it will improve the bond between you and your sibling if it is not the best. The commercial shows how the older brother teases him so often. However, when other kids are teasing him, he stand up for him. The older brother gets the younger brother his Coca Cola back. The Coca Cola had nothing to do with the older brother defending the younger one. In reality maybe he was just not okay with others teasing him. The second fallacy I found was that this commercial was only based on emotion. It shows only how the younger brother feels and is treated. Because of the popularity of their brand there was no need for them to include any facts or statistics about why people should buy Coca Cola. Just by causing the audience to feel an emotion of warmth or comfort is enough to convince consumers to buy this product.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coca Cola - Brotherly Love | Coke / Avicii Hey Brother

# data[].attributes.body
Black and White Fallacy: Within the entire duration of the video, the audience may note that there were no other brands of beans introduced other than Heinz Beans, exerting a “for or against us” pressure on the intended audience. Limited choices were presented when in reality there are other hidden choices, better competition, or brands for the audience to choose from.

Post Hoc Fallacy: This fallacy is the second most prevalent within the argument of the advertisement, as the video commences with a young man who recently became employed at Heinz as the head of innovation specifically for beans. Furthermore, a new character is introduced almost immediately, a beautiful young woman that is obviously romantically admired without an exchange or words, by the employee, Jiff. Jiff furthermore invents a can of beans that is meant to share as he has found a new person to share his passion or interest with. The woman falls in love with Jiff and even kisses him as soon as Jiff offers her the can of beans he made especially for them. Eventually the couple gets married and even starts a family soon after.

Emotion Fallacy: The audience observes that there is no logical or statistical information regarding the beans, such as price comparisons, quality, packaging aesthetics, flavor, store availability, ingredients, etc. The only tactic that the advertisement relies on is purely emotion as themes of love, sharing of passions, inspiration, and communication are demonstrated to appeal to the audience emotionally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heinz Beanz. A Can Size for Every Aussie!

# data[].attributes.body
The type of fallacy that this commercial uses is the appeal to authority fallacy. Authority fallacy is when you are using an authority figure as evidence in an argument and instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the authority. In this commercial Odell Beckham Jr. is the authority figure because he is a very well known football player. He is promoting the shampoo Head and Shoulders, but he never mentions a fact on how the shampoo works or what it does. He mostly mentions all the different names people give him. When Odell mentions that "shoulders are made for greatness not dandruff," is what makes the audience to buy the product because the authority figure which is Odell, uses it in the commercial and makes it seem that someone who uses the Head and Shoulders shampoo is going to be great.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Odell Beckham Jr. | Shoulders of Greatness | Head & Shoulders
Head & Shoulders

# data[].attributes.body
this commercial appeals to emotion, but also a form of a false analogy, because Chevy gives the fascination that buying a chevy brings the same amount of joy a new puppy brings. To add on, the reason Chevy pulls to the viewers emotions, was to keep them watching, and then at the end of the commercial, Chevy stated, "a best friend for life's journey," as the dog and its owner walked into a Chevy car.

# data[].attributes.body
This commercial convinces the audience that they can “live young” if they drink Evian water. This commercial distracts the audience from their actual product to ordinary people having a dance off against baby counterparts of themselves. This Red Herring does not include any information about their water but instead brings attention to the dance battles. The ridiculous concept and event create a humorous commercial that entices audiences to keep watching until it ends. At the end of the commercial a robotic-sounding voice states,” Evian live young” creating a false analogy as no matter what you drink or do you will always age. Through learning about all sorts of different fallacies in commercials and articles, my view has changed as I note just how many advertisements are out there that do not provide sufficient information and instead play on audiences’ emotions.