( JOURNAL ENTRY # 1 )

Dominique Casale

Comp 2000

 

LINK: http://www.slate.com/id/2168471/

 

Ò The point of the argument is to stress the insignificance and lack of impact left on teenagers after watching an overly dramatic pot smoking commercial, such as when they take a few puffs of a joint while going through a drive through and then they run over a little girl on her bike.  It basically saying that in order to get the point across to stay above the influence and don’t smoke pot. They should stray from using ads like the one with the little girl on the bike, because they aren’t getting across to the viewers they’d like to reach, rather just giving them something largely ridiculous to poke fun at. Something making a logical impact that can later happen as a result of smoking pot, much like the simplicity of the ad enclosed with the article. Then hopefully, less and less people will smoke pot.

Ò The claim makes use of value and of fact mostly and slightly with policy (should change the tactics of the commercials and get teens to stop smoking pot).

Ò They use both pathos and logos. Pathos by jeering at the falsity of the past commercials and giving reasons why they should be changed to something that would better appeal to a teens emotions such as him realistically loosing his girlfriend over pot rather than something ludicrous like just because he smoked a joint he is going to hit a little girl on her bike and laugh. Logos by sharing what teens actually connect and relate to use in commercials and realistic thinking by saying they can’t and won’t be affected by prior commercials.  If they can relate and believe it can realistically happen and not laugh at a farfetched commercial, they could possibly make an impact.