I would frame my reaction to this argument to be sympathetic. With all of the many reasons that there are to not eat red meat, there is one major one that stands out to me. The fact that read meat contains a lot of unhealthy fats and other materials. Exercising and making eating a decently clean diet is at the utmost importance to me, this is why I do not need to be swayed by this advertisement.
2. What appeal did this use (ethos, pathos, logos), and how can you tell?
This advertisement uses pathos, in order to convey its message. This is clearly demonstrated by placing the cows in a bipedal position, wearing signs, with poorly, misspelled words on them. These different pieces give the …show more content…
The first thing that jumps out in the advertisement is the message written on the hanging signs. This message states the major premise of the argument. The minor premise is then notice when looking at the animals holding up the signs, which are cows. This explains that not only does the author want you to eat more chicken, but also he wants the reader to stop eating beef.
4. Depending on your choice, a Toulmin or Rogerian argument might be the best way to respond. Which structure would you use in a response? Please be specific.
The structure I would find the most positive for this advertisement would be a Toulmin argument. I feel that a claim that stakes people should eat more chicken and less beef would be the best way to start this argument. Following the claim, I would lay down solid reasoning as to why consuming chicken would be more advantageous. An example of this would be, chicken is a healthier alternative, raising chickens takes up less space, and feeding chickens takes less resources. Lastly, I would warrant that all people show eat more chicken and eat less red meat.
5. End by citing your image. Please note that you will annotate your image on VoiceThread, but will submit a link to your presentation here on RioLearn. Be sure to read the Voice Thread Instructions PDF