This sign clearly employs a Straw Man fallacy, for it misrepresents evolutionary theory in order to then reject it. While adaptation is an element of the theory, it is a gross simplification to presume that traits are adapted to such specific demands. Adaptation is affected by far more inputs and its outcomes are far less precisely targeted.
There are no other devices worthy of note.
This ad uses a False Dilemma. It presumes that there is a forced choice between animal research and the survival of children. While animal research is clearly relevant to medical treatment for humans, there are certainly times where animal research is unnecessary, unnecessarily cruel, and/or when other options are simply rejected for financial reasons. Hence, there is a plausible middle ground that involves some balance between human and animal interests.
In addition to the above fallacy, there is an appeal to pity, for the cute child in the ad is meant to stir emotions and have them influence choice.
The above ad employs a Proof Surrogate. We are not told who these scientists are, what they were specifically asked, or anything else about the alleged survey. Hence, we’re told that most experts agree to a specific thesis, yet have no basis for assessing the quality of the source.
Note that we should not attribute to the above an argument from popularity, since the grounds for assent aren’t just that many believe a specific view, but that allegedly, experts, believe the view.
Lastly, we may add that “Hoax” is dysphemic. The ad doesn’t just say “False” or “Not
True”, but specifically impugns those who think Global Warming is real by implying an intentional deception.
This ad employs Scare Tactics in that it dramatically displays a child presumably in the process of being attacked with a warning about
“Your Child’s Safety”.
Underlying the above is also a Hasty
Generalization in that it assumes reducing police manpower entails increased public danger. While that may sometimes be true, we don’t know if it is true here. Perhaps regional crime statistics warrant the reduction. Perhaps there is a way to generate similar public safety by using less manpower more efficiently. Without knowing the details of the city’s plans, we can’t reasonably draw the conclusions that the ad wants us to come to. This is why there is a fallacy: rather than giving us reasons for thinking that safety will genuinely be affected, emotions are