The Omega watch company withdrew its ads from Vogue magazine in protest over what it called distasteful pictures of an emaciated model in the June 1996 issue. The brand director of Omega argued as follows: “Since Vogue presumably targets an audience that includes young and impressionable females, its creators must surely be aware that they will inevitably be influenced by what laughably passes for fashion in these pages. It was irresponsible for a leading magazine that should be setting an example to select models of anorexic proportions.”
The publisher of Vogue responded:
“[The brand director’s] comments appear to be motivated by sour grapes, because he had objected to the way Omega watches had been photographed for a feature on watches.”
Identify and explain the error of relevance in Vogue’s response.
3 answers
Vogue responded with name-calling rather than a legitimate answer.
The Vogue response attributes a motive to the watch company that it has no way of knowing of and cannot support.
it might be an ad homine fallacy maybe
3 answers