. all to hell and back by a Sprite commercial that had NBA player Grant Hill doing the standard 'Sprite is what I drink when my thirst really needs quenching' shtick while pictures of him holding fistfuls of cash appeared in the corner, with accompanying cash register sounds. The final screen said, 'Drink Sprite because you like it. Not because an athlete says he does.' This was used to wind down the 'Grant Hill Drinks Sprite' ad campaign and kickoff the 'Image is Nothing.
Aug 14, 2019 The Appeal to Age fallacy goes in the opposite direction from the Appeal to Novelty fallacy by arguing that when something is old, then this somehow enhances the value or truth of the proposition in question. The Latin for Appeal to Age is argumentum ad antiquitatem, and the most common form is. But this is just the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, appeal to. Good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this.
Thirst Is Everything. Obey Your Thirst.' Campaign. Ironically, the 'Obey Your Thirst' campaign slowly began to play Appeal to Wealth straight, with a small statue character named Thirst fighting celebrities to get to Sprite first. gives us a one-two punch of and this trope.
A sadistic propagandist is challenged about his absurd claims about marijuana by one of the parents watching the about marijuana's 'evils.' The propagandist points out that his view is supported by Mr. William Randolph Hearst, who is both very wealthy and matriculated to Harvard.
He then scores a hat trick by throwing in the by pointing out the parent never went to college and does not know the word matriculate, then dismissing the parent out of hand. Finally, for the grand slam, he throws in an with another personal attack, suggesting the parent is unAmerican and that the others should report his behavior, especially in light of his 'views.' . The link between vaccines and autism note. Gained much of its popularity because endorsed it. Who, obviously, is a former Playboy Playmate, not a pharmacologist or psychiatrist. This accusation is often leveled at any celebrity who endorses a politician during election season.
A lot of people today embrace the inverse: if someone from Hollywood said it, it must be bullshit. That is equally fallacious.
A variation is arguing that price is directly proportional to how good something is; the ' argument usually takes the form 'X costs more than Y, therefore X is superior in every way to Y.' This is not true; for example, a Motorola Aura costs six times more than a Blackberry Curve but does not have a full keyboard, and a $2500 Volvo 245 station wagon makes a better town car that a $2 million McLaren F1. An example for smaller purchases: multiple articles on China have described factories producing common items such as computer cords, and putting them in different packaging with different labels. The exact same object is sold in computer stores worldwide for multiple different prices (and under the labels of multiple different companies), depending on packaging. People will fallaciously assume that if something is more expensive, it must be higher-quality.
Please note: This does not mean that electronics that look the same yet are of vastly different prices will always just be the same product with different labels. Sometimes the cheaper one really is a and will not give you the same value as the more expensive one.
Without research, you can't really tell if this is the case, or the other one. This fallacy extends deep into human psychology. Scientific studies have shown that if people are given two different glasses of wine, but told that one is far more expensive than than the other, they will. Moreover, if you have the people connected to brain scans while doing the experiment, different parts of their brain will light up for the two different glasses, despite the wines being identical.
(also known as: appeal to poverty or argumentum ad lazarum, appeal to wealth, appeal to money)Description: Concluding that the truth value of the argument is true or false based on the financial status of the author of the argument or the money value associated with the truth. Often I see advocates of alternative medicine say this. That the only thing you do when paying for conventional cancer treatments is that you line the pockets of Big Pharma with gold. I feel that the purveyors of alternative medicine insinuate not only that conventional treatments do no work but also that it is morally reprehensible to take money in exchange for life saving medical procedures. They conclude that because pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money on medicine that their intent must be nefarious. This is capitalism. It is customary in our society to sell goods at a price higher than cost to make a profit.
This is good for everyone. Capitalism makes the world go round. If pharmaceutical companies are evil because they sell drugs to make a profit then car manufacturers are also evil for making money off of selling cars.I have heard similar arguments about vaccines. Drug companies make a lot of money from vaccines.
This means the motivation to make vaccines is not really about saving lives but really only to make money. In reality one can do both.
Vaccines make money for drug manufacturers and they also save lives. Become a Logical Fallacy Master. Choose Your Poison.Logically Fallacious is one of the most comprehensive collections of logical fallacies with all original examples and easy to understand descriptions; perfect for educators, debaters, or anyone who wants to improve his or her reasoning skills.Get the book, Logically Fallacious by Bo Bennett, PhD by selecting one of the following options:.Not Much of a Reader?
No Problem!Enroll in the. Over 10 hours of video and interactive learning. Go beyond the book!Enroll in the. Sit back and learn fallacies the easy way—in just a few minutes per day, via e-mail delivery.Have a podcast or know someone who does?
Putting on a conference? Bennett is available for interviews and public speaking events.