Rhetorical Analysis

This week’s blog post topic is on rhetorical analysis. I read chapter 5 but I am still not sure if I did it right.

iTunes

This advertisement is trying to sell iPods to the youth. It is achieving it by having all the teenagers look like they are having a lot of fun at a dance party by listening to their iPods. This is effective because it is not very common that a teenager does not have an iPod. A logical look at the picture, makes is seem like no one is sociable anymore because everyone is in his or her own little world and not listening to what everyone else is listening to it. At a normal dance, all the teenagers are listening to the music and discussing it and talking about what they like and what they do not like. The music company is saying that everyone needs an iPod, by showing everyone in the picture with an iPod and dancing up and down to their music. It is has some pathos saying everyone has one jump on the

bandwagon and get one too. Saying you do not want to be left out or you will feel really bad. It has some ethos because who is going to know iPods better than the people who have them. This is a social argument because it is relating to pop culture.

Above the influence

The advertisement is trying to get teenagers not to do drugs or smoke. They are achieving it by showing a bug about to eat bug spray, which would kill them. This is saying that if you do drugs you could die from it. It depends on the strength of bug spray that will kill the bug. For example, a cockroach will not die from fly spray but it will from cockroach spray. It uses the ethos approach because above the influence is a reputable source. This source is known to teach teenagers to not do drugs, that is why their advertisements tend to be in magazines, on popular teenage television stations, and on popular teenage websites. It is more powerful with the question at the bottom that states, “what’s the worst that could happen?” This question is rhetorical because it is obvious that a bug will die from bug spray. This is a very social argument because it is relating to pop culture. The argument is trying to show people that are thinking about doing drugs and people that are doing drugs that it is more harmful than portrayed. The people that are thinking about doing drugs or the ones that are, are the only people that are really gaining from the article because if someone believes strongly in not doing drugs this advertisement will hardly affect them.

Geico

This advertisement is saying that switching the car insurance is really easy, do not worry about it, just do it. It is achieving this by having a caveman; someone who is thought to not be intelligent, saying I can do it you can do it too. This, however, does not make much sense because cavemen were the ones that came up with fire. This is appealing to younger and older adults, really anyone who would need insurance. Children are not going to need insurance. It is using some emotional appeal because it is like a challenge. If he can do, so can I. The person is going to want to change the car insurance because he wants to prove someone wrong. It does not seem that trustworthy because it says “get a free rate quote,” nothing is free in this world. Saying “you could save hundreds on car insurance,” does sound believable but, that would vary from person to person and “could” is the key word that most people would not have picked up on. This advertisement has been on the radio, television, internet, and magazines. This advertisement is more political because it is a law that everyone has car insurance, which is the main reason why everyone has car insurance. Because of this law, car insurance companies are trying to make it easier for people to get car insurance and by saying a caveman can do it, is implying that it is easy.

Smoking (I am sorry that I cannot show the picture but here is the link: http://www.geckoandfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/stop_smoking_kills6.jpg)

This advertisement is really trying to get people to quit smoking because it not only kills you but is kills everyone else around you. It is achieving this by showing the three different pictures. The first picture is very powerful with the statistic “3,000 nonsmokers die every year from secondhand smoke.” It is an emotional argument because it is making someone feel bad (touching their hearts) about smoking and how they are killing people. Similar to feed the kids in the third world countries; it feels like if we do not send the money then we are killing them. The first picture shows the smoke reaching out and going to kill someone. The second picture shows them having fun while they are smoking and how it looks like noting bad can happen. The third picture shows them trying to fight for their life and how they are about to die. This is social argument because it is trying to tell people not to smoke like the rest of society that it is bad for you. It can kill you. The language is very strong because it has that statistic of all the deaths. This advertisement is found in a magazine and is one that will make a person look at it because it has such a powerful message. The advertisement is presented in a chronological way. It shows what happens first and then what happens next. The advertisement is appealing to anyone who smokes or is thinking about smoking. It is trustworthy because of the statistic and the underlying message. The only problem is a statistic can be skewed in any way to give the message it wants to give. The fact is it is not going to catch all the people who died of secondhand smoke and it is going to make false assumptions about some people that did die from secondhand smoke.