2028825-419100This essay was written by an ENG 112 student from Spring 2016. The essay follows the guidelines closely and includes all requirements. Bolding has been added for emphasis; you do not need any bolding in your own essay.

020000This essay was written by an ENG 112 student from Spring 2016. The essay follows the guidelines closely and includes all requirements. Bolding has been added for emphasis; you do not need any bolding in your own essay. TCC Student

Professor Campbell

English 112

15 April 2016

-714375546735Paragraph #1: Introduction

The writer catches the reader’s eye with an introduction strategy. Here, he describes a future scenario for readers to imagine.

020000Paragraph #1: Introduction

The writer catches the reader’s eye with an introduction strategy. Here, he describes a future scenario for readers to imagine.

Animal Rights Deserve Logical Consideration

-209550556704400-7143754681855Here, he transitions to the focus of his essay: PETA

020000Here, he transitions to the focus of his essay: PETA

628650109220Imagine never again having to fill a water bowl or to roll out of bed to take the dog for a walk. Envision not ever being prematurely awakened from sleep by a barking pooch or meowing kitty. Visualize coming home to nothing but silence, no ‘man’s best friend’ greeting, ready to jump in everyone’s lap, and to cover the family with doggy slobber. Take it a step further, and picture a world where animals and people do not intermingle–no farms, no zoos, no circuses, no SeaWorld, no petting zoos, no aquariums, and no animals in commercials, television shows, and movies. In this world, animals would run wild and free with no fear of being snatched away from their families by individuals who want to domesticate them, to use them as test subjects, to turn them into various pieces of clothing, to hunt them for sport, or to serve them as the main course in a restaurant. In this realm, animals would not only be free of human rule, they would have rights comparable to humans. This is the world People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, more commonly known -704850447675The thesis mentions the situation and the fallacies that will be explored in the essay.

00The thesis mentions the situation and the fallacies that will be explored in the essay.

as PETA, is trying to create as it spreads its message “animals are not 63817551435000ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.” In its campaign to further its goal of animal liberation, PETA uses fallacies such as appeal to false authority and non-sequiturs.

-762008699400-752475868044Paragraph #2: This paragraph does an excellent job of describing the PETA ad campaigns.

Note the high level of specific detail in this paragraph.

00Paragraph #2: This paragraph does an excellent job of describing the PETA ad campaigns.

Note the high level of specific detail in this paragraph.

PETA’s crusade is nothing short of warfare as it pulls out all the stops in its advertisements. Its most recognized campaign, “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,” intertwines celebrity icons with powerful visuals. Madonna, Khloe Kardashian, and Wendy Williams are just a few members of PETA’s star studded cast who have stripped for this particular ad. Others have stripped and transformed into exotic animals such as snakes and lizards for PETA’s campaign “Whose Skin Are You in?” which was its response to the cruel treatment of animals in exotic skins, leather, wool, and fur industries. In some of these ads, stars are actually posing in pools of blood. PETA has gone as far as to stand nude models in coffins with their arms folded, flowers tucked in the folds, and signs around their waste saying “We Wouldn’t Be Caught Dead in Animal Skins.” Its “Here’s The Rest Of Your Fur Coat” ads picture celebrities such as British singer Dionne Bromfield holding a skinned monkey. A bikini clad Pamela Anderson looks as if she has been tagged by a butcher in a PETA ad that informs us “All Animals Have The Same Parts”. An ashen Noah Cyrus, actress and sister of Miley Cyrus, lies on a gurney with her chest cut wide open exposing her rib cage and organs in PETA’s ad campaign that purports “I Am Not A Classroom Experiment. Neither are cats, frogs, rats, pigs, or other animals killed for dissection. Please chose not to dissect.” Actress Elen Rivas stands nude with four large knifes sticking out of her bleeding back as she shares “The Naked Truth: Bullfighting Is Cruel”. PETA also believes all people should go vegan, and in one of its ads presents toddler lying on the floor and leaning over a book as he smokes a cigar. The slogan says: “You Wouldn’t Let Your Child Smoke. Like smoking, eating meat increases the risk of heart disease and cancer.” Still another ad pictures the pudgy face of a child biting into a -7239004598035Paragraph #3: This paragraph explains how PETA’s ad campaign presents the 2 specific logical fallacies mentioned in the thesis.

00Paragraph #3: This paragraph explains how PETA’s ad campaign presents the 2 specific logical fallacies mentioned in the thesis.

hamburger as PETA tells us “Feeding Kids Meat Is Child Abuse”.

6191257366100PETA’s advertisements are notorious, and rightfully so, as nothing is off limits; what’s even more shocking is how PETA’s campaigns present one logical fallacy after another. First, PETA recognizes that using celebrities and appealing to false authority is a very powerful persuasion technique. People often look to celebrities as role models, and if fans enjoy the celebrity’s acting or singing, they tend to listen to what their beloved celebrity has to say–despite the lack of expertise in animal care. After all, Pamela Anderson might be a visually appealing actress, but she is not a nutritional or animal welfare expert. Miley Cyrus can twerk, but neither her nor her sister Noah are science educators. However, the faces and bodies of these celebrities make people overlook the fact that they are receiving (and sometimes taking) advice from a false authority. In addition to these phony authorities, non-sequiturs abound in PETA’s most outrageous, offensive, and infamous advertisements. PETA uses graphic images, exploitation of news events, sexual inferences to present ridiculous ideas that don’t follow logically. Its ad characterizing all parents who feed their children meat as child abusers is an unfounded detour from logic that is sure to outrage parents who allow their children to eat meat. Also, saying that parents might as well allow their children to smoke if they allow meat consumption is yet another ridiculous non-sequitur that doesn’t follow any logical train of thought. Whether the desired reaction from viewers is overwhelming sadness, sorrow, frustration, pity, or anger, PETA’s advertisements attract attention via -7524755572125Paragraph #4: This paragraph presents how PETA could apply argument concepts to make its ads more logical and ethical.

Note the argument terminology from the notes/book in bold.

00Paragraph #4: This paragraph presents how PETA could apply argument concepts to make its ads more logical and ethical.

Note the argument terminology from the notes/book in bold.

logical fallacies.

6381751143000 Examining PETA’s rhetorical situation, it’s clear that PETA grabs its viewer’s attention and then holds on to it by any means necessary. It uses rhetoric, spin, and propaganda to dissuade people from eating, wearing, experimenting on, and owning animals, but unfortunately, its antics don’t always leave its audience better informed. In fact, PETA’s appeals, fueled by Its use of celebrity status and non-sequitur, present a hostile audience scenario. Rather than base its advertisements on unsupported opinions, PETA should focus on thoroughly educating its audience with facts, statistics, or expert -7429501057275Your essay should demonstrate application of argument concepts and terms in this paragraph.

Not mentioning specific terms from the book/notes will cause your grade to lose points.

00Your essay should demonstrate application of argument concepts and terms in this paragraph.

Not mentioning specific terms from the book/notes will cause your grade to lose points.

opinions via logical appeal. Using experts such as nutritionists and scientists would help support their claims logically. Of course, a responsible parent wouldn’t let his/her toddler smoke, but the logical appeal could explain how eating meat increases their child’s risks of heart disease and cancer later in life. In addition, using a Rogerian approach to empathize with parents who love their children and are also concerned about animals might be more effective than accusing the parents of child abuse. Rogerian strategies would also help find a middle ground between graphic horror or complete ignorance. The average person is not familiar with animal skinning or animal testing processes that occur in factories or laboratories. It would be helpful if PETA could explain these processes in a rational and calm manner, rather than jolt its audience with bloody animal carcasses. PETA’s assertions would be more meaningful and credible if they were supported by logical reasoning. It is a given that animals should be treated humanely, and this idea could be presented using the ethical appeal against meat eaters. The use of logical fallacies deflect from PETA’s contention that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.”

6286491651000-76200019050Paragraph #5: In the conclusion, note how the writer reflects the scenario from the introduction.

00Paragraph #5: In the conclusion, note how the writer reflects the scenario from the introduction.

-7620003207385Paragraph #5: Note the predictions made about what PETA will do on the future.

00Paragraph #5: Note the predictions made about what PETA will do on the future.

PETA is well within its rights to promote animal rights, and even animal liberation, but imagine the world PETA is promoting: a world where animals and humans had limited to no interaction would be quite bleak. Such a world is unimaginable, especially considering just how interdependent animals and humans actually are. PETA will continue is technique of shocking emotional rhetoric and fallacies. In fact, in a world where very little is shocking anymore, PETA will no doubt look for more over the top ways to shock and to even offend onlookers. It’s possible that PETA’s supporters will offer their own bodies for meat, skin, or experimentation. Sooner or later, a publicity stunt will lead to a human protestor with a serious injury or even death. PETA would much more effective if it switched from use of illogical propaganda filled with horrific images to ads that depicted animals and humans coexisting peacefully.