Bene Viera’s “An Open Letter to Tyler Perry” was a response to Tyler Perry’s different works as an artist but his personal response, his latest letter to his fans “Kim Kardashian in Marriage Counselor” Her evidently strong beliefs that Tyler Perry only portrays the women in his films in certain ways is the divine influence beneath her motives in writing this letter, which allow her to present her refutes. In this letter, Viera commits numerous divergent fallacies in which they ineffectively benefit her assertions towards Tyler Perry. While appealing to the readers emotions, ethics and logics, Viera erroneously weakens her argument throughout her open letter . In response to Tyler Perry’s numerous films, Ms. Viera attempts to appeal to the audience by beginning to congratulate Tyler Perry on his success but in doing so she inadvertently commits a fallacy. “Let me begin by congratulating you on your massive success. It is truly commendable to overcome the obstacles you have- molestation, poverty, abuse, and homelessness- to becoming the highest paid man in entertainment.” (1) Viera ineffectively appeals to the reader and commits an ad hominem fallacy. Although she compliments Tyler Perry, she immediately makes an effort on attacking Tyler Perry’s credibility as an artist. Precisely this type of claim she establishes and incorporates in her open letter unquestionably weakens her argument by including irrelevant information. She moderately adjudicates him and paints this negative picture of Tyler Perry for the audience in attempts of strengthening her argument, but it backfires. Not only does she commit and ad hominem fallacy, but there is evidence of other ethical ones as well. Claiming she is a media critic and journalist, with lack of evidence and support, her argument is weakened. Viera’s ethical fallacy of false authority is described in detail: “I write this letter as a black woman, journalist and media critic. I have had countless debates with intellectuals about the quality of your work and whether or not your depictions of the black community are damaging. In those conversations I’ve often played devil’s advocate arguing both sides of the debate. ” Stating that she’s had countless debates with intellectuals on the quality of his work does not mean she or her unknown “intellectuals” are sufficient authority to warrant a belief, that his depictions of the black community are damaging. Mentioning that she’s playing devil’s advocate and arguing both sides of the debate demonstrates to the reader that she does not have a clear sense in her decisions therefore hurting her argument. Committing a false authority in the beginning of her letter can throws the reader off by demonstrating that she’s right because she says she’s right. She’s saying to the reader that they should pay serious attention to claims supported by herself and her group of anonymous intellectuals simply because she’s bringing attention to her concern. Viera does not only rely on this type of fallacy to make her argument, but she also appeals to logical ones. Making claims about Hollywood does not necessarily guarantee truth. She describes on page one; “For whatever reasons the non-black executives calling the
…show more content…
You certainly have the right to cast whomever you think can play the part. I also understand this to be a great business move. You and I know that Kim Kardashian’s role, no matter how big or small, will ultimately get her fans in the theater seats, which equals more money in your bank account.
By implying Tyler Perry main reason to have casted Kim Kardashian to be in his film because it would make him more money is great example of her casual use of a faulty fallacy. She’s giving the reader this false sense of Tyler Perry’s choices. Her choice in deciding to mention this give this bogus idea that the action taken to cast Kim Kardashian was the cause of a second event, his large box office revenue. Although, some actions do produce reactions, it’s a tough call to blame the casting of an individual as the essential basis of his revenue. This supposed connection between the cause and effect is completely erroneous and it’s disadvantageous in her attempts to effectively persuade the audience of her argument. In addition to committing this type of logical fallacy, Viera effectively executes a type of emotional
You certainly have the right to cast whomever you think can play the part. I also understand this to be a great business move. You and I know that Kim Kardashian’s role, no matter how big or small, will ultimately get her fans in the theater seats, which equals more money in your bank account.
By implying Tyler Perry main reason to have casted Kim Kardashian to be in his film because it would make him more money is great example of her casual use of a faulty fallacy. She’s giving the reader this false sense of Tyler Perry’s choices. Her choice in deciding to mention this give this bogus idea that the action taken to cast Kim Kardashian was the cause of a second event, his large box office revenue. Although, some actions do produce reactions, it’s a tough call to blame the casting of an individual as the essential basis of his revenue. This supposed connection between the cause and effect is completely erroneous and it’s disadvantageous in her attempts to effectively persuade the audience of her argument. In addition to committing this type of logical fallacy, Viera effectively executes a type of emotional