Friday, February 19, 2010

Does this appeal to your emotion?

Does this Appeal to your emotion???

The fallacy I choose to talk about is Appeal to emotion.Now this is not the first time that I have herd about this fallacy but it is defiantly one I have to read and re-read. in the book it says
  • Appeal to emotion: You should believe or do (blank) because you feel (blank). (This is always bad if the conclusion is a descriptive claim)
This is a little vague, so I did a little extra research and the description of appeal to emotion is, a fallacy following this structure:
  1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
  2. Therefore X is true..
My example is this:
Our new car will make you feel so good when you see how much gas we have saved. Saving money and looking good is the right thing for you!

This is appealing to the emotion of the person who has just bought themselves a new car, so according to the text this would be bad because it is a descriptive claim.

2 comments:

  1. I like how you broke the definition down and gave two definitions, the one from the book and then an extra one that you found. In my opinion the definitions the book gives often aren't very helpful for me so I often have to do extra research to better understand the term or the concept, but not this time because you already did it. I like your example as well; it's almost human nature to appeal to your own emotions after a big purchase because you want to justify the amount of money spent. It’s like we are justifying with ourselves more than with others, especially with car purchases.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really liked your example because it comes from an everyday situation that people do find themselves in. You hear more and more car dealerships combining the money factor with the gas saving factor just to get business. I also liked how you researched your fallacy more so that you could understand it more. It also helps that you gave to definitions, one of which was way more helpful than the one the book gives to you. You really put some thought behind your fallacy and it was easier to understand because of that.

    ReplyDelete