Primal Health's Article 'Proof That Advertising Is Bad For Your Heath'

Primal Health 's opinion article, “Proof that Advertising is Bad for Your Heath”, attempts to persuade the audience that advertising promotes things highly detrimental to health and lives. In the article, the writer called Bex, asserted her solution was to get away from advertisements as much as possible. She encouraged ditching magazines and free-to-air TV. The writer focuses on target markets, non-profit guise, and vitamins incorporated with junks foods. However, while committing to this, Bex implied no other tactics that would be better-suited solutions for prevention. To argue this point, logical fallacies throughout the article such as false dilemma, non-support, and prejudicial language assisted Bex in creating a shortsighted essay that can be easily debunked. After using Ad Baculum in the dangers of advertisement, Bex employed the fallacy of false dilemma and labels advertisement as harmful and deceptive. The article only pushed action towards no interaction with the advertisement. Bex, using a

In her article, the writer claimed that her stance on avoiding all advertisement is to combat “Moms...easily conned into buying a 'quick, healthy snack ' for their kids” (Bex 1). The writer used prejudicial language to fuel her argument with emotive terms used to attach value or moral goodness to believing her proposition. The writer went on to propose her method to “Eat healthy by ignoring the health food labels” (Bex 1). Bex insisted that, based on her own observation, that mothers that buy quick, healthy snack for their kids aren 't eating healthy and are being conned. Through the fallacy of prejudicial language, the writer of the article is merely assuming the worst and employing the use of words like “conned” to persuade readers towards her solution. She ignored the idea that perhaps there are healthy quick snacks and buying those can be a safe choice for