Question

Appeal to pity: An advertisement shows pictures of adorable puppies with sad eyes looking out from a cage in a kennel. The slogan reads, “Give a lonely puppy a good home.” Personal attack: “This candidate recklessly drove in 2009. She divorced her husband in 2010. She dates a Hollywood movie producer. Nothing about this woman indicates a serious reverence for the law or commitment; nothing about this candidate suggests that she would represent this government in a respectable fashion.” These statements are example of logical fallacies. Of the following choices, which one BEST explains the error in each statement to prove the argument’s conclusion? A. In the appeal to pity argument, the advertisement perfectly explains the reasons to bring home a shelter dog. In the personal attack, the statements give valid and factual reasons to not vote for the said candidate. B. In the appeal to pity argument, the advertisement avoids emotional appeal so that the viewer uses logic to rescue a shelter dog. In the personal attack, the statements defend the candidate and give valid reasons to elect her. C. In the appeal to pity argument, the advertisement appeals to emotion by showing animals in sad circumstances to support the claim that dogs need homes. In the personal attack, the statements focus attention on personal characteristics and draw conclusions about the candidate’s ability to serve the government based on her personal life. D. Both of these appeals appropriately persuade audiences with valid and logical conclusions.

Answer 1

Answer:

C. In the appeal to pity argument, the advertisement appeals to emotion by showing animals in sad circumstances to support the claim that dogs need homes. In the personal attack, the statements focus attention on personal characteristics and draw conclusions about the candidate’s ability to serve the government based on her personal life.

Explanation:

This is the statement that best explains why both ads are examples of fallacies. In the first ad, we see an appeal to pity. The ad employs emotional appeals by showing animals in sad circumstances in order to convince the reader to adopt one. In the second ad, the argument is similarly fallacious, as the statement focuses on personal characteristics in order to support the idea that the candidate is not capable of holding public office.