Inside the CasketIn this well-made ad the creator used all three rhetorical appeals; Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. The ad is very plain absolutely all black and white portraying 3 caskets, each covered in a USA flag. There is no dialogue, no distracting images, or anything that would draw the viewer to any other thing in picture other than one simple statement, “Which is the gay one?” The ad is trying to convince the viewer that discriminating against soldiers fighting for our country is pointless, meaning that in uniform, or under a flag covered casket you will never know the sexuality, but only the one true thing that soldier is out there doing; fighting for our country. In the ad, the use of Ethos is not greatly represented due to there not being much on the ad. On the other hand, one could argue that Ethos could simply just be the justification that those caskets are covered by a USA flag which in logic means a U.S soldier is inside. As to the credit given for the ad, Tribune Media is given all the credit as its name is written on the upper left hand corner along with the year published and a signature. According to background information gay and lesbian soldiers were discriminated against since the military has been around, not until 2011 President Barack Obama passed a law repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that was passed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 (Dunham 1). The repeal giving gay and lesbian soldiers just as many rights as heterosexual soldiers. Given that this ad was published in 2009 explains the severity of the issue and the push towards equality for gay and lesbian soldiers fighting for our country. That said, the visual appeal to Ethos still ties to the issue of ethics towards homosexual soldiers.
Logos is greatly portrayed in this advertisement, like said before, it is logical to know that a flag covered casket means a soldier has fallen. The text on the ad is easy to understand and . There is no real evidence written in the piece, and the author does not give the viewer any clear evidence that euthanasia is the right thing to do; no facts or information back up the argument. Also, the argument presented is entirely one-sided (pro-euthanasia). This helps and hinders the claim because it reveals the premise right away to the viewer, but also makes him either agree or not, thus in a way leaving out the possibility of a compromise or of convincing the opposite side. To present their argument, the author employs different strategies. For example, in the text, syntax and diction play a key role. First he exposes the title of the topic and then appeals to the viewer to reflect on the issue. By using terms such as “You” or “really care,” it makes the viewer reflect on the situation from his point of view. Also, by using repletion and parallelism with the word “You,” it emphasizes the importance of the viewer’s point of view on the issue. Now, even though this might seem as a strengthening strategy, it might also work as a fallacy, since the issue does not only include the bystander (to be portrayed by the viewer), but also the dying patient, and by appealing only to the bystander’s thoughts and not the patient’s, the argument might be thought of as selfish or blunt and work against the piece. In the visual point of view, the author uses a picture of an example situation predominant over the whole advertisement. This could help the viewer focus their attention and directly relate to the argument. The colors are just black and white, maybe alluding to the argument of life versus death, thus correlating the viewer to the issue even more. In general, the main weakness is the lack of supporting evidence, but the strategies used to connect the viewer helps the ad make a good concise premise.
Emotion appears to be the strongest appeal used in the piece. The text uses phrases such as “really cares” to make the viewer associate to the subject and empathize how it would feel to be in that sort of situation. It