A Rhetorical Analysis of Ads: A Fight for Animal Rights Successful ads stand out when compared to others and they should leave an impression on the viewer. A good example are these two ads that push for animal rights as they both make strong arguments for becoming vegetarian. One ad has two monkeys dinning away at a human corpse. It’s skull is cut open and the ad appears to take place in a beaten down restaurant. The other ad has a piglet and a dog side by and the ad asks, “Why love one but eat the other?” Not only do the ads make meat consumers think about their eating habits, they also encourage those who are already vegetarians to keep at it. The ads have extremely different approaches to adver-tising and how they present the idea they are selling. Though both ads are efficacious in their own way due to the ads appeal to pathos, ethos, and logos, the ad by Mercy for Animals is far more effective. The ad presented by Humans for Animals is filled with grotesque imagery that makes the viewer cringe. In the ad two monkeys are casually dining on a dead man’s brain who’s head is the center piece on restaurant table with a red table cloth representing death and murder. In some parts of Asia people like to dine on the brains of monkeys. They slaughter them right …show more content…
Humans for Animals makes a good ad that catches the eye it’s not relatable or relevant enough to the average person considering going vege-tarian. There is a chance the ad leaves an impression on the viewer but the ad does not successful-ly provide evidence or reason to convert to vegetarian. The other ad is clear and concise and is more likely to make people truly think about the food they put in their bodies. The Mercy for An-imals advertisement communicates to people by being more relatable and by appealing to ethos, logos, and pathos more effectively than the other