Congratulations!
17 years ago
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Animal Testing: Rhetorical Analysis
At first I was not sure if my image was a primary source or not, but then i noticed the fine print at the bottom stating it's purpose. My focus is on a modified Covergirl ad. The character in the picture is a chihuahua with a photoshopped wig, pearl necklace, lipstick and full facial makeup. the text reads: easy, breazy....beautiful? COVERGIRL. In the lower right hand corner rests a set of make up products next to fine print that explains how Covergirl, of the corporation Proctor and Gamble, is one of the largest animal testing companies in the world. The purpose of this argument is to make it known that make up and lipstick companies, especially Covergirl by Proctor and Gamble, test their products on animals. They use the image of a little dog, a chihuahua, to show that these companies design their products based on research that entails the use of animal testing in order to discover problematic side effects. The ad aims at anyone who uses these products and those who use products by the same company to convey the facts they are stating. The image appears to be a poor argument, the dog is pretty ugly, and the outfit makes it look even uglier. They are attempting to appeal to the viewers pathos and ethos because it could raise the question of ethics into the issue of animal testing and the ad itself aims to appeal to the viewers emotions by showing an innocent animal dressed in product designed from possibly abusive testing on it's own kind. The ad does not have a listed sponsor or any supportive facts, so the viewer can only assume the source is from those who do not approve of animal testing simply as a matter of opinion. The image projects the claim that animal research is abusive and wrong and that companies we widely depend on in our culture and society are the ones responsible for harming these animals for insignificant reasons such as lipstick and facial rouge. The ad fundamentally serves the best interests of animals that suffer the proposed abusive testing because, if heeded, they could be spared. They also serve to gain support on their side of the ongoing debate of animal testing and research, although we do not know who the "side" is referring to because no evidence or creator trademark is listed. Overall I believe the emotional style of the argument was poorly presented and will not be effective. The dog is simply dressed up, even little girls dress up their pets for fun. The dog does not even look hurt or depressed due to its state. It is a little disturbing simply because a chihuahua has a wig and make up on... The argument is not very effective though. It does not convince the viewer strongly or effectively enough to have any lasting meaning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The add Nick chose does seem effective in its shock value and getting the idea that Covergirl is one of the largest animal testing company, but it does not really convince the reader that what Covergirl is doing is inhumane. It sounds like minimal details are on the add and maybe some more statistics or an example of a story of animal testing abuse would increase the effectiveness of the add.
ReplyDeleteNick,
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like funny ad, but I can for sure see how you don't think it is an effective argument. I thought the assumptions you made about the ad being against animal testing were very reasonable. I liked your ideas and I thought you did a good analysis. Good job
Jenna
Nick,
ReplyDeleteWhen i first started reading your blog it was unclear of what the ad was trying to argue. My first thought was oh how cute Covergirl is reaching out to pet lovers and all natural women. As I continued to read I realized the ad was a type of awareness statement for people who are against animal testing, or ever people who simply use products that were tested on animals. My point is that this add still in my opinion is UNCLEAR, I am not even sure if I’d be shocked if I saw it so the shock factor is missing in my opinion. Also the fact of the lack of supporting factors and statistics also makes for a poor argument. Good work Nick.
When I started reading about the dressed up Chihuahua, I thought that it was going to say that some little girl put make-up on her dog. So basically I initially thought that it was a Covergirl ad. But then you said how the dog was ugly and that Covergirl tests on animals that I understood. I think this is an interesting argument though as you never said the dog was in poor health due to the make up. So I agree that the argument made here is weak if not ineffective.
ReplyDelete