This advertisement shows a baby sitting next to a Michelin tire and there is a text saying, “Michelin. Because so much is riding on your tires.” This advertisement is targeting car owners, more specifically parents, and it uses pathos to make them think emotionally about the safety of their children. They want the safest tires so there won’t be any harm to their children. The use of pathos is good in the ad, but the lack of other components like logos and ethos make the ad overall not as effective as it could be. This advertisement does a poor job; it lacks evidence completely that having Michelin’s tires will keep the passengers safe. There are also different types of fallacies in the ad such as scare tactics, non sequitur, and generalization. …show more content…
It uses a scare tactic that if you don’t get Michelin tires, the safety of your child is in grave danger. It generalizes that Michelin tires keep the passengers safe, but there is no real evidence to back it up. The car owner does not know how good the tire quality is and how much better it is than any other tire companies. Any other tire could do the same job as Michelin tires. There is no statistics showing accident rates of people using Michelin tires verses people using other tires, so you can’t just look at this advertisement and say that if it is telling me it will keep my child safe, I must buy it. It also uses non sequitur that you don’t care about the safety of your children because you haven’t bought Michelin tires. The warrant is that buying Michelin tires is essential to keeping your children safe. This doesn’t work because the safety of the children doesn’t depend on having Michelin tires. This advertisement is also weak because not all car owners have children, so the ad does not really work for