Is it really worth the pain and suffering of animals in order to produce a variety of cosmetic and medicinal products for humans? This question of ethics is addressed by AACT, Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania, as they strive to stop animal testing through the use of a striking advertisement portraying a women with obvious ailments due to testing. The AACT’s advertisement proves to be tremendously rhetorically effective as it commands a powerful uses of pathos, evoking a strong emotional reaction as people begin to understand the cruelty behind their beauty products. In support of the pathos, a significant amount of logic is effectively established through a through use of labeling, and the advertisement’s credibility continues to grow as the AACT expands its organization. …show more content…
The ad mainly targets the average consumer as the AACT attempts to establish guilt when asking for support. The ad effectively achieves such goal as the text “This won’t hurt a bit,” is placed in contrast to the depiction of the woman who had been subjected to harmful tests. In addition the placement of diction also assists the appeal of pathos as the AACT indirectly categorizes both humans and other mammals as “animals” in the text “Stop Animal Testing,” found directly under the woman’s swollen face. This categorization reminds humans that they are animals too, and if humans should not be subjected to unforgiving tests, then neither should