# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Having an iPhone means that all of your information will stay private.

Logical Fallacy: No matter what the device is, anything can get hacked, even the most secure devices. The brand will not prevent hackers from entering phones. This ad is giving customers a false sense of safety. Customers will now believe that if they buy an iPhone, there is a 0% chance that their private information will not get leaked. Millions of phones get hacked every single year, including iPhones. In the end, this may harm their brand if customers complain about not having privacy in their own phone.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Cheerios is America's favorite cereal

Logical Fallacy: the claim states that Cheerios is "America's favorite cereal" however, there are no logical evidences backing up this claim. In addition, it is very unlikely that there happens to be a unanimous opinion on their favorite cereal from all the citizens of America.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: The cigarette brand "Camel" should be chosen over anything else as even doctors use it.

Logical Fallacy: The ad claims that doctors smoke Camel the most out of every other thing, making a hasty generalization, as if others will have the exact same opinion. In addition, it says "according to repeated nationwide surveys", doctors smoke camel than any other cigarette. This shows another logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Surveys are based on reliability, it does not necessarily imply validity, as they can be inaccurate.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Rice krispies helps support children's immunity.
Logical fallacy:
Hasty generalization - The ad claims that rice krispies support children's immunity without sufficient evidence to back it up, meaning that the ad is making a generalization that rice krispies support immunity with insufficient data. Additionally, the little evidence they do provide about there being a 25% daily value of vitamins and nutrients is small and insufficient. It doesn't address the high sugar levels of the product, only trying to sell the product based on a small sample of evidence (and there is no data to back up that there truly is 25%. daily value of vitamins and nutrients).

# data[].attributes.body
Claim, Reese's peanut butter cups, the chocolate brand claims that their product is perfection

Logical Fallacy: Evidently, by providing such a bold work ("perfect"), there is an apparent fallacy as there is no scientific based evidence to back up this rather grand statement. However, this tactic lures consumers into buying their product by using such an appealing word choice. Without any sense of statistical and scientific backing, this advertisement displays zero logic considering that their word choice is for the purpose of marketing, rather than logical based reasoning. Furthermore, for the purpose of allure, the marketers behind this advertisement use hasty generalization by labelling their chocolate as "perfect," yet they fail to take into consideration the various likings of consumers and whether or not their chocolate would satisfy EVERYONE.

# data[].attributes.body
CLAIM: Starbucks coffee is the best coffee and drinking it will make you the "best."

LOGICAL FALLACY: In this advertisement, it is suggested that the only way for a consumer to be the best version of themselves is for them to consume Starbucks coffee, which is obviously false. This is a false equivalency because it equates being the best version of yourself to something unrelated like drinking Starbucks coffee, and it makes the consumers think that they will not be the best version of themselves unless they drink this coffee. Drinking Starbucks coffee is not truly equivalent to being the best, so the comparison made is flawed. The advertisement also implies that Starbucks coffee is the best coffee, but there is nothing to substantiate it other than simple generalizations, such as the coffee being the "taste of inspiration." Furthermore, many people might not agree with the idea that their coffee is the"taste of inspiration." and the best for themselves, so the advertisement makes hasty generalizations as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: If you buys these shoes, you will be able to dunk

Logical Fallacy: This ad has tries to convince the audience that in order to be succesful in your basketball career and be able to dunk you must buy these shoes. They are making it seem like in order to do better in basketball you must have these shoes and if you do not have them you won't play good or be able to dunk. This sentence makes no sense and is absolutely not true because your shoes do not determine how well you are able to play

# data[].attributes.body
The tagline of MasterCard states:

"There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard."

Claim: This implies that everything that can be bought, can be done with a Mastercard, and that it is the exclusive method in which to buy anything and everything, as long as it is not something money cannot buy.

As reasonable and catchy as this sounds, MasterCard's slogan does not hold much truth. It is an instance of a fallacy, specifically a false dilemma. The tagline provides only two drastic alternatives despite the various methods of payment that exist today including credit cards apart from MasterCard, checks, etc. In limiting the audience’s options and suggesting that either something can’t be bought, or otherwise can be bought with a MasterCard, people experience “false dilemmas” and thus, mistakenly assume that they are obligated to choosing from these two choices.

By making it seem unimaginable to purchase anything without the use of their card, people are forced into corners of false perception and are likely to feel the urge to use a MasterCard of their own.

The two-case scenario that the slogan proposes is unrealistic, as there are not only other alternative methods of purchasing, but also situations in which a MasterCard would be useless.

Evidently, not everything can be bought with a MasterCard, and not everyone can purchase anything they desire. By establishing a false sense of assurance in the financial world, people may even be led to believe that the wide range of things money cannot buy is possible through a MasterCard. It is untrue that for the things that can be bought, a MasterCard exists to buy those things.

This fallacy suggests that the argument is not credible or realistic, and in fact even offensive to some people in their attempt to persuade the audience.

The advertisement can be better in various ways if it provides genuine qualities of the company that show its superiority to its rivals, which would prove to be more rational and sensible. Despite their attempt in luring customers through their ostensible ability to solve their financial burdens, they should, nevertheless, have a  pragmatic approach.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Audi, in order to boost the popularity and encourage the general public to purchase their cars establish the vehicles as the persons/owners companion and make a personal connection between the owner and the object.

Logical Fallacy:
It is pretty obvious what the logical fallacy is, a companion is a living creature and such cannot be applied to such items as a car for example in the Audi advertisement. The Audi advertisement propagates the idea that this vehicle will fulfil the roles of a companion, which it cannot. It leads you to the assumption that the car will be useful in times of emotion need and dependence on others. It also plays of the assumption that people are immensely obsessed and affectionate about their cars. They lack evidence and displayed statistics to prove other, meaning that the car will not be able to fulfil the roles advertised in the labelling.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: McDonalds wants to promote their food, and show that their food will fulfill your hunger, and wants to fulfill your "craving."

Logical Fallacy: Though this is quite straight forward there are some noticeable accounts in which can be seen. The first being that a craving cannot be created, but rather is naturally caused. They also provide a beef burger, that may not be exactly suitable for some. This goes for vegetarians, vegans, pescatarians, etc. There is no proof in ingredients, or theory in which there would be an exact craving to eat this burger.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Raisin Bran was marketed as “the deliciously heart healthy way to start your day,”

Logical Fallacy: I fell for this fallacy as well, because I have always been under the impression that Raisin Bran was a heathy alternative to other cereals. Unfortunately, it actually contains 18 grams of added sugar per serving—which represents almost 40 percent of its calories. The claim for it to be "heart healthy" is misleading and false, as it is just as if not more unhealthy than other cereals on the market. This ad lacks sufficient evidence and proof that Raisin Bran is good for you. It plays off of the assumption of the people that the addition of raisins will automatically make this particular cereal healthier, when in reality it doesn't.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: People who order salad actually want to eat a burger from McDonalds instead.

Logical Fallacy: This ad has generalized that everyone who wants to eat a salad would rather eat a burger instead, which isn’t true. There is no evidence or proof that proves this and people could be eating salad because they genuinely like it and would rather have that than a burger, not because they were forced to.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Canada Dry Ginger Ale is made with 100% natural flavors, including real ginger.

Logical Fallacy: Canada Dry Ginger Ale is in fact not made with 100% natural flavors, and although their claim about having real ginger in the ale is not false, the ginger is boiled in ethanol beforehand. This advertisement also makes it seem as if this is healthy in a way, when clearly it's just like every other soda, containing high amounts of corn syrup and tons of sugar.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Nesquik can satisfy nutritious needs, unlike other leading brands, while being tasty at the same time, and therefore you should depend on it.

Logical Fallacy: The ad claims that their drink is "delicious," but imposes a hasty generalization, as it may not satisfy everyone's taste buds. It also claims to have "45% less sugar than the leading chocolate syrup brand," which is faulty, as the audience is most likely uninformed of what the leading brand actually is and how much sugar their drink additives contain in the first place. The ad also claims that the drink contains "7 essential vitamins/minerals," without specifying which exact ones Nesquik has, questioning its credibility.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Getting rid of cable and upgrading to DirecTV can help avoid problems such as falling into a dinner party.

Fallacy: This ad concludes that "when you pay too much for cable" it will set off a chain reaction that will lead to literally falling from the sky into a dinner party. This is an obvious slippery slope fallacy because it is very, very unlikely that a person handles their cable situation this way and will lead to this. Most people will simply just find a different solution that won't harm them. The chain of events is unrealistic and over exaggerated, thus, slippery slope.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Funny DirecTV Commercial - Dont Fall into a Dinner Party

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
more info http://DirectTVGuide.net direct tv guide direct tv internet direct tv channel guide direct tv channel list direct tv customer service

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: The burger displayed is only half the calories of two monster thickburgers.

Logical Fallacies: The sentence itself doesn't make much sense. "only half the calories of two monster thickburgers". If it refers to the burger in the picture, a monster thickburger, half of two burgers would just mean one burger is equivalent to on burger in calories. The sentence just makes me ask why even include just obvious statements.
Hasty Generalization-- There is no proof or sufficient evidence to prove that the burger is half the calories of two monster thickburgers. You also can't tell the amount of calories in the picture of the burger.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Dentists and hygienists use oral-b products, so you should to.

Logical fallacy: There's no proof or statistics in this ad, that shows most dentists and hygienists use oral-b products. The reasoning of this ad is that oral-b is popular with dentists, therefore you should use it too, even though it doesn't give any good explanations or benefits to using oral-b products.(bandwagon).

# data[].attributes.body
Snickers’s Claim: “You’re not you when you’re hungry”

Logical Fallacy: Without having to think about it, the slogan “you’re not you when you’re hungry” logically does not make any sense; no matter what, you are still you.

- Hasty Generalization: Snickers concludes that people act differently when they are hungry based on an assumption that people are usually moody or cranky when they are hungry. While this may be true, it only applies to small amounts of people from around the world.

- Slippery Slope:

Snickers concludes that by eating a Snickers bar, it will set off a chain reaction of you “becoming yourself” again, returning to your normal state. This is a clear logical fallacy because even if you are hungry, you are still you.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Manscaped is the most safe, easy to use, and effective grooming device.
Fallacy: In the advertisement, Manscaped is stating how it is an easy grooming device to use when in fact it may not be easy to use for everyone. Just because it may be easy and effective for some people, that doesn't mean it will be easy to use and be as effective for other people as well (hasty generalization).

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Honey Nut Cheerios is America's favorite cereal and it can lower cholesterol.

Logical fallacy: The ad has no evidence proving that Honey Nut Cheerios is actually "America's favorite cereal," and it goes off the assumption that if people read and see that others are buying it then it will convince them to buy it, but that's not necessarily the case (bandwagon). There also isn't any evidence suggesting that it will lower cholesterol and the wording for that statement does not seem very convincing, as it says "CAN help lower cholesterol," which would indicate that it doesn't always help.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: If you drive a corolla Toyota you will get a lifetime of good times.

Fallacy:
- This claim is a  extreme generalization because it has no proof or evidence to back it up. Not only is there no evidence, but it is impossible to prove that one car could even provide a lifetime of happiness, making it also a logical fallacy.
- slippery slope: this ad is falsely advertising that this car will lead the buyer to a lifetime of goodtimes, which is clearly not true.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: By using optic white toothpaste, you're guaranteed whiter teeth in just one week.

Logical Fallacy: This ad has no credible sources to support why consumers should purchase this product. They only attempt to engage more consumers into buying their toothpaste because they promise that it will show immediate results once you use it. However, without proper evidence and credibility to support this conclusion, the ad fails to have any logical sense whatsoever.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: If people use this product they will get less wrinkles in only minutes.

Fallacy: This ad contains many points lacking logic, since there are no scientific evidence/
research that proves Dermitage claim. The image and claim they used is clearly very flawed, for it is very exaggerated and very obvious no product can make a person age backwards so instantly. The ad is definitely trying to appeal to the buyers with this obviously edited image but with no evidence backing up their claim it makes it clear this ad is logically flawed.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim - This game is the most relaxing farm game of 2020, more relaxing than any other game on the market.

Fallacy - This is an example of a circular argument. The owner of the ad expects us to except this claim that the game is super relaxing with no evidence to support the claim. Any other game could be more relaxing than this one, we don't even know if this game is relaxing at all. There is no evidence to support that this game is more relaxing than the rest.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: This ad claims that the "TASTY BURGER" at Burger story is not only tasty but cheap.

Fallacy: First of all, by not putting a real image of the burger on the advertisement, the advertisement becomes less credible and the company seems to have less faith in their product.  Also, in the image there is a glowing light coming from the back of the burger symbolizing that is a "angelic" burger, but this is a clear hyperbole and doesn't have any evidence especially because the image is simply a cartoon.

Hasty Generalization-Furthermore, it claims to be a tasty burger, but there is no evidence to back up that claim. Without evidence such as reviews or even a happy person eating the burger, the claim that the burger tastes good holds no ground.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: This car is the future of the human race

Logical Fallacy: To start iff with, it is impossible to build time. Time is not a malleable substance. Also, there is no evidence supporting that this car is the future. This is just speculation that this car won't be replaced in a year or two. Also, the word future is a red herring in itself because you get sold on the word future rather than the car itself.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Over a million Australians have made the switch to try this toothpaste, so consumers should make this switch as well.
Fallacy:  These consumers expect people to jump on to this idea because it's popular and because everyone else is doing it. Just because millions of Australians have used this toothpaste, doesn't justify its use. It doesn't talk about their reviews or how well the solution works, rather the advertiser only makes the claim based on bandwagoning.
Additional Claim: Go pro and make the switch today.
Fallacy: The statement here is clearly a False cause. This advertiser is making the claim that you are going "pro" if you make the switch like other Australians. On what grounds does that make you a pro? This company makes consumers misunderstand that they'll feel complimented and happy if they make a switch towards this brand of toothpaste.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: McDonalds makes the perfect burgers, making it the best place to eat.

Logical fallacy: This claim is not only not a fact, it's not backed up by evidence either. No burger/food in general can be perfect, as there is always a mistake. In addition, McDonalds is almost making a pressurizing impression. By saying it's "perfect", it pressures/lures people to come eat at McDonalds.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: PETA is arguing that if you would not eat your dog, a household pet, then why would you eat a turkey for Thanksgiving.

Logical Fallacy: PETA uses moral equivalence, essentially setting up two options where the answer would most obviously be the answer PETA wants you to pick. They are setting a turkey, a bird usually bred and hunted for consumption around Thanksgiving, equal to your household dog, a pet you've grown up loving for several years. Since the average human being would most likely not eat their dog, PETA argues that they shouldn't eat a turkey either. It is an outrageous claim and a logical fallacy in their argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Weight Watchers works well to help people lose weight.

Logical Fallacy: This claim is a very generalized statement. Not only that, the claim has no evidence to back it up so there is no way to know if others also feel this way. Even if a select number of people agreed with this statement, there is no way that everyone in the world also agrees.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Disney is the happiest place on Earth.

Fallacy: The official tagline of Disney is "The Happiest Place on Earth"  is so clearly flawed with logical. "The Happiest Place on Earth is an example of a bandwagon because although Disney is a popular place and attracts many viewers, it does not automatically make it "the happiest place on Earth". Popularity does not equate to the value of happiness. This slogan is also an example of a circular argument. Disneyland makes a pretty specific claim but has no evidence to support it. Disney asserts this conclusion and makes it clear that it should be just accepted.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Car insurance from Allstate is essential to help car owners protect their cars during accidents and help the owner with payments for the car damage. This ad is meant to convince car owners they need to buy Allstate car insurance in case of an accident.
Fallacies:
Hasty Generalization-
"Teenage girls can't drive because they are too emotional." The man portraying the teenage girl makes it appear as though every girl would crash their car and then continue to drive off if they got news that their crush kissed their friend. He is projecting that every girl would get emotional and wreck their car, so people should insure their cars.
Slippery Slope-
The ad claims that if you own a car and don't have Allstate Insurance your car will not be protected and then someone will crash into your car, leaving you with piles of debt.
Straw man-
While presenting this situation, the actor portrays the weakest way the "teenage girl" would respond, therefore not representing the actions of the majority of girls.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: If you use Extra Gum, you can find love.

Logical Fallacy: The commercial depicts a young couple falling in love after sharing a piece of Extra gum. As the commercial progresses, the couple eventually get engaged. This is an example of slippery slope because after sharing a piece of gum, it set off a series of events that eventually led to the couples' engagement. Furthermore, this ad is false cause; just because you use Extra Gum, it does  mean that you will fall in love. There is no sufficient evidence in the ad to support this causation.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Opening a coke will make you happy.

Logical fallacy: This claim is false for many people and there is no scientific evidence that backs up the statement. Obviously, some people may not like coke and if they open a bottle of coke, they won't find happiness.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Using the Crest toothbrush will give the user a "healthy, beautiful smile for life".

Logical Fallacy: This ad has logical fallacy because there is no proof or evidence that would show that the Crest toothpaste would give the user a healthy and beautiful smile, coming to a sort of hasty generalzation. There is no certification from a dentist or doctor that would prove this claim, so why would this be true? Just having a woman on the cover on the advertisement would not convince everyone of Crest's statement. Also, did they interview everyone who tried the product and find out if they did have a healthy smile, or at least if they got somewhere near it? If they didn't, this statement can't be true. Crest just makes a generalized statement with no evidence that they think would convince everyone. What's to say another product couldn't do the same thing?

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: If you have a car and you choose not to have Allstate car insurance then your car will not be protected and then someone will crash into your car and you will have to pay it all by yourself without any help because you did not get Allstate insurance.

This ad has an obvious slippery slope. The ad makes it seem like mayhem will unleash if you don't get Allstate insurance. There is no sufficient evidence to support the claim that this chain reaction will occur.

Additional Claim: Teenage girls cannot drive with emotions

Allstate makes it seem as if teenage girls can't drive with emotions which is a hasty generalization. There is no evidence or real event to back up this claim. There is a rare possibility of a teenage girl learning that a guy she likes has been kissed and being emotionally distraught and crashing into a car yet continuing to drive off.

Allstate utilizes these two fallacies to further convince the viewers that their insurance company protects you from a car accident. It also helps to convince viewers with teenage daughters that they will find it hard to drive with "emotions," which will inevitably lead to a car accident, so by having Allstate, they will be protected from that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Allstate mayhem commercial - Dean Winters as Teenage Girl in Pink Truck

# data[].attributes.body
claim: the audience absolutely shouldn't buy this burger
logic: they use reverse psychology to take advantage of their audience's sense of self-autonomy and coerce them into buying the product even though the original ad warns against it. they also switch up the colors to make certain words more palatable to the eyes and draw people in so that they read the ad and are influenced by its logic

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Harley-Davidson bikes are the best for comfort as well as to own.

This ad has a rather hasty generalization because people may be looking for different things in a motorcycle to meet their requirements. To say that it is the best is saying that everyone likes the same things, whereas I can say with fact of mind that many people choose to stay away from Harley-Davidsons. This ad is focusing on bais and is more of a subjective ad and directed to one audience rather than the entirety of the population.

# data[].attributes.body
CLAIM: Whenever you are in the midst of ordering a salad (which is most commonly associated with healthiness), you are actually craving a McDonalds triple-decker burger.

Red Herring: A red herring is a type of logical fallacy; it is a distraction. In this advertisement, the author is deterring the reader from the fact that they were first opting for a healthy, green salad, and instead, diverted the focal point to an immensely large and caloric burger from McDonalds. The advertisement begins with the topic of the salad, and then shifts to an entirely unrelated topic in order to deflect the reader towards the topic of McDonalds' "delicious" and seemingly much better of a choice, as opposed to the healthy and "sad" salad.

Hasty Generalization: This advertisement is making an evidently hasty conclusion that EVERY viewer of this advertisement craves for a McDonalds' burger when they are ordering salad. How would the author of this advertisement know that every person in the world secretly thinks of a burger when they are at a salad bar? Was there research conducted? A study utilized? A hasty generalization was created as a logical fallacy, as there is insufficient data from this ad that would help support the claim that EVERY PERSON in the WORLD desires a burger when they are in line for salad.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: The shoes will enhance your athletic ability, as you would even  able to dunk
Fallacy: Just because the person in the ad is wearing the shoes doesn't mean that is what is giving the person the ability to dunk. There is no evidence in this ad to support that the shoes correlates to a greater athletic ability.(False Cause)

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Drinking Coca Cola will give you happiness.

Logical Fallacy: This a statement made with no proof or evidence to support it. To specify, although there are two people on the cover of the ad who are laughing over their bottles of coke, this image isn't scientific proof that their happiness comes from drinking the Coke bottles. They could be laughing for practically any other reason. For example, it could be that they're just enjoying each other's company. There simply is no way to guarantee that drinking a beverage will automatically make you happy.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Burger king has been cooking perfect burgers for 50 years.

Logical errors: Hyperbole is used to describe burger king burgers, because obviously there is no such thing as a perfect burger, its incredibly subjective. And the claim that they have been cooking nothing but perfect burgers for 50 years just doesn't make sense and could easily be denied by anyone who has had a burger other than burger king in the past 50 years and thought it was better.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Colgates is the primary brand that is always recommended by dentists.
This advertisement has many aspects in where it is lacking in logic, as there is no certification or credibility towards dentists or companies that are able to back up Colgate's claim. Additionally, the ad is trying to make the consumers think that if it's the best that even people like dentists recommend, they should get it. Since there is no solid evidence indicating that Colgate is recommended by dentists(No solid evidence or other people who are certified to back this claim up), this claim is thus proven to be bias and merely a strategic way to appeal to possible consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Other stock photos are bad and twenty20 has better stock photos.
Fallacy: Who is the authority on what stock photos are good or bad? Generalization that all other stock photos are bad.  Twenty20 is making the claim that their stock photos are better- obvious bias.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: If the people with the money are buying this car, you will seem as high-class as them if you buy it for yourself.

This advertisement has a clear hasty generalization. Who are "the wealthy" and where is this information coming from? If a study was conducted at all, is the number of people enough to represent that entire group? It also does not make clear whether everyone who is wealthy buys the car or everyone who buys the car is wealthy. They are different.

Plus, most clearly, the company indirectly makes a promise they cannot keep. They say that with this car, being treated like a high-class citizen will come to the buyer, and everyone's automatic envy of a life like that is reached out to. This advertisement essentially relies on consumer jealousy, otherwise who would care what "the wealthy" drive?

# data[].attributes.body
The claim is that "more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette [and therefore you should too]."

This advertisement has a clear logical fallacy within. Just because doctors use a cigarette does not mean they advocate for it, nor do the usage of cigarettes imply that they condone this behavior.

Also, who conducted this study? Apparently, after further research, the sample group of doctors were given Camel cigarettes to smoke then asked which cigarette they would choose next time.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: mothers trust and use Clorox, and therefore you should too.
Logical errors: Such a generalized statement cannot truly be made. Not all mothers will like Clorox, and no reliable evidence/statistics is even shown to back up this claim. Only one review is shown, which cannot possibly account for the opinions of all mothers. That means this is a hasty generalization. Additionally, seeing mothers as experts, or authorities, when it comes to cleaning is not logically sound. Not all mothers are experts when it comes to disinfecting, meaning this is a false appeal to authority. It is also based on harmful stereotypes that show women as better at cleaning than the opposite sex. There is also no proof that the review at the bottom was even from a mom, if it was a real review in the first place. Having a feminine username does not automatically equate to being a mother.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Tiffany and Co sells jewelry to people who have incredible love lives.

logical fallacy: This Tiffany and Co ad has hasty generalization. The line " The World's Greatest Love Stories" may not be true.  The greatest love stories may differ from person to person, and the ad is generalizing the criteria to become "a great love story".  There is also a bit of bandwagoning in the add. The company puts "since 1837" to create a sense of reliability and superiority due to the company being old and long lived.

# data[].attributes.body
Claim: Wendy's food is less expensive than a personal trainer, and therefore, you should buy it.
Fallacy: This Wendy's ad has a very blatant logical fallacy, being that food from Wendy's is not at all comparable to a personal trainer, and therefore, one should not be compared to the other. I believe that this is a false equivalence fallacy, which was not specifically mentioned in the videos.