Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

By Jashan Gill and Polly Parakul, 6th period.

Definition: It
attempts to prove
that because a
second event
followed a first
event, the second
event was the result
of the first.

Visual
Fallacy:

Skin
Polishin
g
Cream

Visual
Ad
Annotations

Visual Advertisement Analysis

Our society has placed a great deal of attention on a handful of words that have no pure meaning when it comes to
marketing-- youthful, beauty, cleansing, free. The obsessive lust for all things superior is fulfilled by an advertisement
that has exactly what you need. This advertisement in particular appeals to a womans mind. The people behind
Meaningful Beauty distorts a persons idea of aging; they villainize this human process into something that must be
changed. Consumers are curious by the product because of its strategic use of ethos. By having a celebrity, Cindy
Crawford, endorse the merchandise, a viewer tends to ponder about the price of this product and how if a millionaire
celebrity believes this to be true, it has to be. Post hoc ergo propter hoc was thrust into action by the means of the line,
discover cindys secret to youthful-looking skin, implying that this anti-aging cream works wonders; although, they
didnt literally provide evidence of Cindy Crawford using the product, giving this statement a raggedy background. In
addition, the logical fallacy, ignoring the question, played its role in the advertisement by a means of action. Even
though the advertisement is for the anti-aging serums, it veers off into the direction of a free gift, providing detailed
descriptions of its purpose, as well as a larger size, but it avoids discussing the product itself, adding suspicion to its
actual performance. Lastly, this product falls in line with millions of other beauty assets because of its use of a clutter
crisis, dumping this one in with the others. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is potent in changing the viewer's attention, and it
is most effective with distracting the viewer from an honest and authentic statement with a misguiding ploy.

Textual Fallacy Example from the Republican Presidential Debate in

Detroit, Michigan on March 4th, 2016.
CRUZ: This is the people at home who are struggling through seven years of Barack Obama.
This is the single moms who are working two and three jobs, 28, 29 hours a week because their hours have been forcibly
reduced because of Obamacare. This is the truck drivers and the steelworkers and the mechanics with calluses on their hands
who have seen their wages not grow year after year after year while the cost of living goes up.
This is all the young people coming out of school with student loans up to their eyeballs that arent able to find a job.
And I dont think the people of America are interested in a bunch of bickering school children. They are interested in
solutions, not slogans. Its easy to say, make things better, make things great. You can even print it and put it on a baseball cap.
But the question is, do you understand the principles that made America great in the first place? As president, I will repeal
every word of Obamacare. I will pull back the regulators that are killing small businesses.
And we will pass a simple flat tax and abolish the IRS. And what thats going to do, Megyn, is small businesses are going to
explode. We are going to see millions of high-paying jobs. We are going to see wages going up. We are going to see
opportunity.
[Perry, Richard. "Transcript of the Republican Presidential Debate in Detroit."The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Mar. 2016. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.]

Textual
Fallacy
Annotation:
GOP
Presidential
Debate
Transcript

Textual Fallacy Analysis

On March 4th, 2016 at the Republican Presidential Debate in Detroit, Michigan, candidate Ted Cruz was put on a
pressuring spotlight when asked about the low and unexpected number of votes from his core conservative voter groups.
Similar to most politicians when asked a difficult question, he derails attention from the daunting statistics and tries to
appeal to the pathos of the audience by stating not what mistakes he has made as a politician but what mistakes the
current president -- one of his Democratic opponents -- has made for our country. He employs post hoc ergo propter
hoc by conveying that because Obama tried to provide a service for our country by implanting Obamacare, that act itself
is the one absolute reason why we have struggling citizens all over the country; Cruz blatantly ignores the question he
was asked and instead paints another politician as the failure. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is often potent because it has a
periodic effect. Cruz used it perfectly in this situation: by simply saying because Obamacare exists, people suffer, the
statement within itself is vague and controversial, as well as it is an overgeneralization. However, when he states his
solutions for Obamacare (illuminating the unspoken need of the people), at the end of imagery, it steers the path clear
for any speculation of a fallacy to our ears. He visualizes an image of the most miserable, pitiful types of citizens in the
nation and when US citizens, as well as any public citizen of the world, see that a bigger figure acknowledges their
suffering, our pathos has been affected. Once our ears hear the solutions right after the problems, the whole statement
sounds acceptable. This fallacy is the perfect vilifying tool for politicians to adopt; it not only points blame to their
opponents but also praises the speaker in a brighter light as well.

Our
Advertisement:
Annotated

Bear Feet: Keep In Touch With Nature

Our product, Bear Feet, features an uplifting sensation by using soft, welcoming diction and a variety of light
colors, as well as earth tones, to appeal to the free spirited, nature loving consumers. While encouraging and
inviting our customers to partake in a pure, naturalistic experience with our products, were also subtly
besieging the viewer through fallacious diction and underlying message. Targeting the main consumer group of
free spirited people, we chose to decrease our usage of line because they represent borders and limitations; we
want to shatter that image by using uplifting, light diction such as true connection outdoors natures touch
and true purity to create a love mark between the viewer and the product. At the same time, gloomy and
depressing diction-- prisoning trapped in cages-- provides a fallacious effect that both encourages and
manipulates the viewers pathos, guilting them into perceiving their purchasing decisions to be at fault. The
logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, embellishes the consumer's inquiry that was already shifted by
mesmerizing photos. It states that because we buy shoes we are, in return, jeopardizing our relationship to the
earth. Overgeneralization is put into effect by the proclamation of absolutely everyone yearning for a deep
connection to the outdoors. Lastly, we chose to incorporate either/or fallacy to support our fallacy, post hoc
ergo propter hoc, because it asks the hard question. It demands for you to ask yourself its question, which in
turn creates controversy with the viewer's mind; thus, we spring into action our gentle nudge to solve that
resting question with our solution -- Bear Feet.