Group members: Carlos, Andy, JJ, Joseph Commercial #1 Testimonial was the chosen fallacy for this commercial because of how the commercial shows Ali Landry (Miss usa of 1996) ate a smoky hot dorito. Because of this the fire alarm went off because of how smoky the dorito was making the room all smoky. I think the commercial used this fallacy because of Ali Landry being miss usa in 1996 showing that she was “smoking hot” and since the product is smoking hot doritos it all relates. Of course this was back then in 1996 and no one of this year knows who that is anymore because it was long ago. This in my opinion is a very effective commercial because of Ali Landry. Of course this wouldn't work now but back then when everyone knew her it all made sense as to why doritos decided to use her. It made the customers persuaded to buy doritos back then because of how she was miss usa and she was smoking hot. Commercial #2 …show more content…
In the commercial there was a pregnant woman getting an ultrasound check up for her baby. But to the right of the women there was (what we assume to be) her husband who was eating doritos during the ultrasound. Because of this the baby was shown in the ultra sound to be trying to grab the doritos and the husband was messing around with the baby moving the dorito around with his hand. The wife got mad and threw the dorito and the baby came out of the wife for the tasty dorito. This all shows emotional appeal because of how funny it was and I think it was an effective way to persuade customers to buy doritos because if a baby who never had a dorito in its life goes out of its way to come out of the women and eat the dorito then dang it must be a really good dorito. I think doritos used this fallacy to humor its audience but also persuade them with their comedy showing how tasty the dorito is making it a good blend of humor and