Another logic question

[steve_bnk]

Here is one I see that has come to be used in TV commercials. Does it fit a form of reasoning?


The commercial goes through a series of logical causations in and of themselves valid, ending in a conclusion totally unrelated to the causal chain.


For example.


'...If you go outside in the rain you might slip and break a leg, if you break a leg you might end up in in the hospital, avoid going to the hospital buy Acme laundry detergent...'

 

[Rhea]

Like an appeal to the Butterfly effect.

 

[beero1000]

Here is one I see that has come to be used in TV commercials. Does it fit a form of reasoning?


The commercial goes through a series of logical causations in and of themselves valid, ending in a conclusion totally unrelated to the causal chain.


For example.


'...If you go outside in the rain you might slip and break a leg, if you break a leg you might end up in in the hospital, avoid going to the hospital buy Acme laundry detergent...'

It should perhaps be unsurprising that advertisers and logic are not on the best of terms.

 

[ficino]

Could we say that the advertisement makes a bifurcation fallacy? I.e. it argues a binary analysis of the cause of the foreseen effect: either you bought the detergent or you did not buy the detergent. It ignores the fact that a huge number of factors belong to the chain of causes that contribute to that effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While it *MIGHT* happen the odds are remote and using a chain of events hides the rareness. The thing is most people don't really understand probability.

A -> B with 1% odds. People can see this, unlikely but certainly possible.

B -> C with 1% odds. Again, unlikely but possible.

C -> D with 1% odds. Likewise.

We have three events each of which people see as unlikely. Thus they tend to see A -> D as unlikely. The reality is A -> D is one in a million.

 

[Archimedes]

'...If you go outside in the rain you might slip and break a leg, if you break a leg you might end up in in the hospital, avoid going to the hospital buy Acme laundry detergent...'

But if I go to the shop to by Acme laundry detergent I might be run over by a bus.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But if I go to the shop to by Acme laundry detergent I might be run over by a bus.

That's just something that the marketing department of CleanSure laundry detergent wants you to believe.

 

[doubtingt]

Advertising isn't about trying to convince you of anything. It is about trying to make you feel emotionally positive about a brand. They are not trying to make an argument about the product. IF they were, they would present facts about the product (which they rarely do unless forced by government), then use some kind of argument that superficially appears as though they have reasoned to a conclusion. Ads rarely take this route. They rarely present factual claims (true or false) about the product. Most of the time is spent presenting images and sounds with no relevance to the product, but that make you feel positive while the product is on the screen. They are trying to bypass your rational thought processes entirely and create an emotion-based brand loyalty that your conscious reasoning mind wasn't involved in and isn't aware of, and that you might even deny if asked. It just behavioral conditioning.

IOW, they are doing the same thing that religions do, which is why I generally find companies that use such advertising as unethical and harmful as I do religion.

 

[James Madison]

Here is one I see that has come to be used in TV commercials. Does it fit a form of reasoning?


The commercial goes through a series of logical causations in and of themselves valid, ending in a conclusion totally unrelated to the causal chain.


For example.


'...If you go outside in the rain you might slip and break a leg, if you break a leg you might end up in in the hospital, avoid going to the hospital buy Acme laundry detergent...'

Non-sequitur.

 

[steve_bnk]

I believe you are right. it did not occur to me.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non sequitur

: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

 

[Underseer]

Here is one I see that has come to be used in TV commercials. Does it fit a form of reasoning?


The commercial goes through a series of logical causations in and of themselves valid, ending in a conclusion totally unrelated to the causal chain.


For example.


'...If you go outside in the rain you might slip and break a leg, if you break a leg you might end up in in the hospital, avoid going to the hospital buy Acme laundry detergent...'

If the conclusion is unrelated to the previous arguments, then you are dealing with a non sequitur fallacy.

(Whoops, I can see I was late to the party. Serves me right for replying before reading the entire thread. I'm such a doofus.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But they aren't arguing logic. They are either trying to ingrain into your mind that their product exists or they are trying to make you equate a positive emotion with the product.

Commercials are about mental manipulation, not establishing rational and logical arguments to defend buying their product. My daughter will be playing around and once a commercial comes on, her attention is immediately grabbed. That bothers me, that commercials target such base instincts and drives in the mind.

 

[bilby]

 

[Zeluvia]

This is why I think a course in Critical Thinking and Logic could be taught easily by deconstructing TV commercials.