Magazine ads and commercials are the best ways to sell things. Their main goal is to sell the product and find the best ways to do so. First there is a product and then there is a setting for the product. By trying to bring these two aspects together logical fallacies are formed. For example comparing a comb to a porcupine, which is a false analogy. Through analyzing these magazine ads I will present the logical fallacies within the ads.
These ads are from the October 2001 issue of GQ magazine; first ad portrays Michael Vick, quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. Michael Vick who is well known in the sports world is wearing designer fit clothing. The Cloths he is wearing is of a stylish fashion something not sporty, which is most athletes' commercial look. Michael Vick is known for his fine NIKE apparel and now seeing him in such fancier clothing is contradictory. The Ad is saying that even if one is a sporty person one can where these clothing. What, also can go without saying is that many of our fashion is of someone else. By using Michael Vick in this ad the logical fallacy appeal to popularity (Internet cite) is used. Appeal to popularity is using Michael Vick's popularity to sell the product. Consumers will purchase this product if Michael Vick is wearing it. The either-or (Seagull Reader) fallacy is presented; which is giving one a choice to choose whether to buy the stylish cloths or the sporty cloths. However, which clothing line one decides to wear he/she is likely to be jumping on the bandwagon (Seagull Reader); another fallacy, which explains the philosophy of doing what popular people do or wear. Even though one may be getting on the bandwagon another fallacy comes to mind. Non sequitur (Seagull Reader) fallacy presents us with false pretenses: wearing these clothes will not make us look or play like Michael Vick; and false authority (Seagull Reader): what does a football quarterback know about clothes?