Pragmatic argument scheme rule violations in
over-the-counter drug advertisement
Master Thesis
Communication and Information Studies: Discourse and Argumentation studies - University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dr. Corina Andone Second reader: Dr. José Plug
Much has been studied about prescription medical advertisement as an argumentative activity type, but non-prescription ads have received considerably less attention. Therefore, the idea of this thesis is to focus on this kind of promotion and determine how fallacious moves can happen in it, by creating assessment criteria to judge sound and unsound argumentative moves. The motivation behind this idea comes from a belief that people have been auto-medicating themselves more than necessary and that advertisements often use misleading claims to convince consumers to purchase certain drug.
To determine these criteria, I will first define over-the-counter drug advertisement as an argumentative activity type, then verify the prototypical pattern used in the argumentation made in ads, and finally, discuss the unsound arguments that can happen within the analyzed pattern.
Key words: non-prescription drugs advertisement, ads, fallacies, rule seven violations, pragmatic argument scheme
Chapter 1. Introduction ... 2 Chapter 2. Over-the-counter Drug Advertisements as an Argumentative Activity Type ... 7
2.1. Characteristics of Non-Prescription Drug Promotion as an
Activity Type 9
2.2. Strategic Maneuvering Framework 17 2.3. Conclusion 19
Chapter 3. Pragmatic Argumentation in Non-Prescription Medical
Advertisement ...21 3.2. The Pragmatic Argument Scheme Related to
Over-the-Counter Drug Advertisement 23
3.3. Subtypes of the Pragmatic Argumentation in Non-Prescription Drug Promotion and the Critical Questions 32 3.4. Conclusion 37
Chapter 4. Fallacious Moves within the Over-the-Counter Drug
Advertisement ...39 4.1 Fallacious Moves According to Pragma-Dialects and Strategic
Maneuvering 40
4.2. The Argument Scheme Rule and the Critical Question Pertaining to the Pragmatic Argument Scheme 43
4.3. Identifying Fallacies: Developing Criteria for Sound and Unsound Moves 45
4.4. Conclusion 53
5. Conclusion ...55 6. Bibliography ...57
Pragmatic argument scheme rule violations in over-the-counter drug advertisement | 2
Chapter 1. Introduction
Billions of Euros are spent on health advertisements every year. For example, GlaxoSmithKline, United Kingdom’s largest pharmaceutical company, spent $2.5 billion on advertising campaigns in 2007 alone1. Healthcare promotion caught the attention of discourse analysts not long ago, and drug promotion has been deemed as an argumentative activity type and analyzed accordingly. However, extensively before these types of ads concerned analysts, advertisements had been interpreted as instances of argumentation, and this notion translates into the obligation to probe just how sound are the arguments in ads; to verify if they follow a valid line of reasoning, or if indeed they try to convince the buyer with acceptable reasons. This obligation is one of the wherefores behind this thesis.
Most of the attention given by discourse analysts to medical advertisement has been focused on prescription drug advertisement, a phenomenon only legal in United States and New Zealand. My intention is to cover the less studied area of the drug promotion – the non-prescription, also known as over-the-counter (OTC), medical ads. The research done in this field - mainly by Snoeck Henkemans (2016 and 2017), and Wierda(2015) - suggests that most promotional material for over-the-counter medicines use pragmatic argumentation to defend their point of view. The implicit message of every advertisement being a call for action from the targeted consumers (Slade, 2002). Thus, in this kind of scheme, which is a subtype of causal argumentation, the argument is based on a relation of cause and favorable, or unfavorable, consequences. A basic example of pragmatic argumentation can
be: "You should take this drug(cause), you will feel better (desirable consequence)".
Being that one of reasons to choose this topic is to comply with the obligation to verify the soundness of argumentation, this thesis will discuss the fallacies that can occur within the pragmatic argument scheme in over-the-counter drug advertisements. A fallacy can arise whenever the advertiser fails to correctly follow the rules for a critical discussion, in accordance to the pragma-dialectics framework. In a more specific light, I will focus on the errors that may arise when a pragmatic argument scheme is incorrectly applied, or the critical questions pertaining to it are not satisfactorily addressed. Failing to correctly apply a scheme qualifies as a rule seven violation: “Standpoints may not be regarded as conclusively defended by argumentation that is not presented as based on formally conclusive reasoning if the defense does not take place by means of appropriate argument schemes that are applied correctly” (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004, p. 194). Examples of rule seven violations are false cause (fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc), slippery slope, and red herring (non-sequitur). All of which happen when the arguments do not properly defend the standpoint in the way suggested by the chosen scheme, or the cause-effect inference is not done correctly.
In advertisements, like any other real-life argumentative discourse, every argumentative move is aiming to combine effectiveness with the maintenance of reasonableness, and there is always a tension to maintain the balance between the two. Based on this observation, Van Eemeren (2010), created a theory to promote harmony between the two end-goals, and in doing so, coined the term “strategic maneuvering”. This concept explains that
an arguer is always maneuvering between his dialectical goal of being reasonable and the rhetorical goal of being effective by: (1) making the most opportune selection from the topical potential of argumentative moves available at a certain point in the discussion; (2) adapting as much as possible to the demand of the intended audience; and (3) using the most opportune presentational devices (Eemeren, pp. 93-96).
In accordance with strategic maneuvering, fallacies are derailments of a critical discussion. The author affirms that, "in case arguers in their pursuit of effectiveness neglect their commitment to reasonableness and violate one or more of the rules for critical discussion, their strategic maneuvering “derails” into fallaciousness" (Eemeren, p. 198). Therefore, the aim of this thesis, as stated above, is to explore these violations and derailments; the reason behind this choice is the fact that promotion is a considerable part of the health industry. The non-prescription medicines market, which encompasses pain relievers, cough drops, vitamin complexes, and more, is responsible for a large proportion of the money spent in advertisement by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, this market moves more than a hundred billion dollars every year. In the United Kingdom alone, the market share for medical advertising was equivalent to roughly three million euros in 2015. However, this number is small when compared with the U.S. consumption of non-prescription drugs, where research shows that 81% of adults use OTC medicines as a first response to minor health issues. In the U.S., advertising budgets are substantial, and advertising-to-sales ratios in the healthcare industry range from 20 to 50%, which is seven times higher than the average for all other industrial sectors.
Another justification for choosing this topic is the desire to offer people ways to make more informed decisions when purchasing non-prescription drugs. Research conducted and published by Woloshin et al. (2001) in The Lancet proves this point, since it shows that 87% of the advertisements (broadcasted in the U.S.) only describe the benefits of a medication in vague and qualitative terms, such as: "Help your child out of the jungle of allergies". In order to achieve this practical goal, my plan is to evaluate examples of over-the-counter drug ads, and to determine criteria for sound and unsound arguments. I realize this is an ambitious goal to achieve, and further research is needed to determine what really helps consumers make better decisions. However, I hope this thesis may be the beginning of a bigger project on non-prescription drug advertisement as an argumentative activity type.
Summing up the insights above, I propose the following research question: What are the conditions for a sound pragmatic argument scheme in over-the-counter drug advertisement?
To answer this question I am going to, first, discuss the non-prescription medical promotion activity type by creating a broad analysis of its institutional point, its argumentative means, its opportunities, and its constraints, as well as the four stages of a critical discussion. Second, I will review how strategic maneuvering takes place within this activity type. In this way, it will be possible to explain how an advertiser’s argumentation is constrained by the specific institutional features of these advertisements. The second chapter will also outline the argumentative patterns found in these kinds of ads.
In the third chapter, I will detail the pragmatic argument scheme, making it feasible to understand how this kind of argumentation works, and what constitutes a reasonable argument in this scheme. I will describe the steps of the scheme and give examples of ads.
The fourth chapter will explore the soundness conditions for pragmatic argumentation in the medical field, the critical questions, and the argument scheme rule. This will create the basis to discuss fallacies in non-prescription drug advertisements, and make an analysis of the sound criteria to identify them. This part will also contain the scrutiny of the collection of ads presented in the third chapter. After this, a conclusion will be drawn focusing on the main points of the thesis and presenting the next steps for a bigger project.
Chapter 2. Over-the-counter Drug Advertisements as an Argumentative Activity Type
In this chapter, I will describe the difference of opinion, the starting points, the argumentative means, and the possible outcomes of OTC drug ads as an activity type. I will also analyze the four stages of a critical discussion and discuss the opportunities and constraints of the field. It is important to stress that when the communication is argumentative in nature, characterizing the argumentative activity type is necessary to do justice to the institutional factors influencing the boundaries for maneuvering strategically (Visser & Weirda, 2014). The chapter will also contemplate the patterns that can be found in the argumentation of non-prescription drug ads.
According to the pragma-dialectical theory, a communicative activity type is a conventionalized practice aimed at fulfilling the institutional needs which are defined by the conventions and context circumstances of the genre. The communicative activity types differ due to the distinct types of differences of opinion. For example, in a law case the difference of opinion would be mixed formal; in a medical consultation, on the other hand, a non-mixed informal difference takes place, or in the case of this thesis, a quasi-formal non-mixed difference of opinion. The types also vary accordingly to the four stages of a critical discussion towards resolving a difference of opinion and its empirical counterparts: the initial situation (confrontation stage), the starting
points (opening stage), the argumentative means and
criticisms (argumentation stage), and the outcome of the exchange (concluding stage).
Another point of notice is the types of standpoints possible in a situation that diverge from evaluative and prescriptive, to descriptive or hybrid variations. In advertising, the standpoint is prescriptive and states that the advertised product should be purchased; and the procedural and material starting points, which can be explicit and well defined, such as in a court case, or implicit and loosely defined, like in over-the-counter drug advertisement. The specific requirements pertaining to the way in which the exchange between argumentation and criticism matter and differ from strongly regulated exchanges in a parliamentary debate, to exchanges largely determined by the participants in a private discussion.
In the non-prescription promotion case, the health department of each government regulates the exchanges. In the United Kingdom, the country on which I am focusing my thesis, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the body responsible for the licensing of medicines, and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain (PAGB) is the organization that provides the guidelines and rules for OTC ads. Established in 1919, the PAGB is the industry self-regulatory body which ensures balanced and responsible marketing of self-care products, and has published the Blue Guide (2014) which contains all the guidelines for non-prescription medical advertisement. Finally, the kinds of outcomes that can be reached should be considered, which vary from a final verdict of a judge in a law case, to a decision whether to buy a certain drug in response to a medical ad.
Based on the considerations above, I will define over-the-counter advertisement as an argumentative communicative activity type, and considering the four stages, including the standpoint and starting points, the
argumentative moves, and possible outcomes.
2.1. Characteristics of Non-Prescription Drug Promotion as an Activity Type
To examine the activity type, I will borrow concepts from Visser and Weirda's paper Direct-to-Consumer Advertisements for Prescription Drugs as an Argumentative Activity Type (2014), and from Weirda’s dissertation on authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements (2015). Even though some points differ between prescription and non-prescription drug advertisement, such as the intended public which is more general, and the constraints, which are not as strict, the institutional point and the empirical counterparts of the stages of a critical discussion remain very similar in nature.
Strategic maneuvering alongside with the dialectical goal of reasonableness and the rhetorical intent of effectiveness, an argument within a specific conventionalized context will have a singular institutional point. This is, also, what differentiates one activity type from the other. Hence, to interpret the OTC drug advertisement activity type, we have to assume, in agreement with Snoeck Henkemans (2016), that advertisers do not only want to have a reasonable discussion with a potential buyer, they want to win the discussion, in order to ultimately make profit with the selling of medicines. In that way, there is a constant tension between pursuing “reasonableness” and “effectiveness” in every piece of pharmaceutical promotion. This friction is what allows the space for fallacious moves to happen, since in pursuing effectiveness, advertisers may overstep the critical discussion rules, or leave
critical questions unanswered. Also, the possibilities to maneuver strategically are constrained by extrinsic boundaries to the communicative acts, which are allowed in a specific institutional context resulting from a combination of formal, conventional, and legal restrictions.
The defining elements (selling and informing) of the aforementioned communicative activity type make pharmaceutical promotion a hybrid type, in which promotion and consultation are mixed. This mixture is the combination of two domains, the commercial communication and the medical communication. The former has the goal of making profit by enticing costumers to buy a product; the latter aims at maintaining or improving health, and its constituent is empowering patients to consider if they should use certain product or not. Therefore, the over-the-counter drug ads have a composite institutional point as an attempt to persuade the consumer to use the medical product, and a legally required effort to provide information to empower buyers to make informed choice. Even though regulations are not as strict for non-prescription drug promotion, guidelines for these kinds of ads still aim to enable consumers to make an appropriate decision, and to protect their health and safety as much as possible.
In the words of Visser and Wierda (2014), “The complex institutional point of this activity type combines the initial commercial intention of the pharmaceutical company and the obligatory compliance with the legislator’s regulations” (pp.88). This means, pharmaceuticals desire to make profit by selling more products, and use advertisements to achieve this aim, which is the commercial side of the hybrid institutional point. The consultation side derives from the legal need to inform the consumer about medical
considerations, such as the obligatory line in Brazilian drug ads, "consult your doctor if symptoms persist".
In her dissertation, Wierda (2016) expresses that in order to achieve the institutional point of direct-to-consumer medical advertisement, it is crucial to consider both of its constituents, that is, persuasive and informational. By means of the medical constituent, the commercial goal will also be fulfilled since advertisements that enable consumers to consciously consider whether they should use certain drug have more chances to convince buyers to choose the drug advertised. In over-the-counter advertisement, even if the guidelines made by PAGB state that commercials should provide clear information about the drug, advertisers still have significant freedom with what they can promote in ads. In the comprehensive picture when both elements are considered, commercial and informational, the promoter will accomplish the overall goals of the communicative activity type of direct-to-consumer medical advertisement, that is, making profit and maintaining/improving health.
Having established the hybrid institutional point of over-the-counter drug advertisement, I can now move forward to presenting the stages of the critical discussion. As mentioned by van Eemeren (2010), all argumentative discourse is, ideally, geared towards the goal of resolving a difference of opinion in a reasonable manner. Four discussion stages can be distinguished in the pursuit of this goal: the confrontation stage, where the parties establish they have a difference of opinion, the opening stage wherein they agree to try to resolve the difference, the argumentation stage in which the parties put
forward their arguments in defense of the standpoint, and the concluding stage, when they analyze if the difference has been solved.
Understanding the critical discussion model is essential for evaluating if an argumentation has proceeded correctly, which will help to analyze the fallacies in the next chapters. It will also give a better understanding of the over-the-counter drug advertisement activity type. Here, it is relevant to point out that as a result of the complex institutional points which the advertiser aims to achieve, the possibility of derailment in advertising grows exponentially. Besides the chance of violating critical discussion rules by losing sight of the fragile balance between an arguer’s dialectical obligation of reasonableness and the rhetorical goal of effectiveness, advertisers can fail to realize one of the institutional goals of the over-the-counter drug advertisement activity type. If the balance tips in favor of the dialectical side, then the consumers may notice the information and, yet, may not be persuaded; this is a failure of the promotional side. On the other hand, if it shifts to the rhetorical side, then the consultation aspect of the complex point has failed.
Before relating each stage to its empirical counterpart in argumentation reality, it is significant to consider that the discussion in advertisements is implicit, that is, we only see the contributions of the protagonist, the pharmaceutical marketer, and not the ones of the antagonist, the consumer. The consumer’s role is only represented by the critical reactions anticipated by the advertiser, who takes into account all the responses the consumer could potentially conjure. Slade (2002) suggests that we think of all
advertisements as a company arguing a case to a skeptical buyer whose first critical reaction to an ad is doubt.
In the confrontation stage, we can establish that there is a single (the claim has only one proposition), non-mixed difference of opinion. The protagonist advances a standpoint in an implicit discussion anticipating that it will be met with hesitation from the antagonist. The standpoint here is always a recommended action, "Consumers for whom X is suitable, should use product X”. The arguments that follow are the interlocutor's attempt to defend the action and circumvent possible counter arguments.
The opening stage presents the procedural starting points which are the inferential parts of the argument scheme; the material starting points are the premises of the context which make the argument relevant to the audience. Both the protagonist and the antagonist share these starting points. The material features are not easily defined in advertisements since the audience is very broad and has a wide variance in values and ideas. In order to call attention to the argument, advertisers attempt to define the starting premises by addressing a particularity of the general audience through explicitly ascribing certain opening points. One of the strategies used to narrow down the context is to pose a rhetorical question regarding a medical condition, such as ‘Constant headaches?’ or 'Is your son caught in the jungle of allergies?' or even, ‘Do you sometimes feel tired?’. Another path is to present common knowledge or general societal desires, like: 'We all want to be young'. The procedural starting points for the over-the-counter activity type are partly shaped by the pragmatic principles of persuasion, and molded by the regulations which the UK has established for this market. The inference is
also constrained by issues such as space available for the ad, the time the audience has to view the ad, the media on which it is presented, and the market which it serves (different inferences can be made depending on social class, culture, and other aspects).
The rules for a critical discussion are also set in the opening stage, wherein the guidelines written by the PAGB apply: the recommendations were developed ‘‘to protect the public from misleading medicines advertising’’ (PAGB: Medicines Advertising Codes, 2009). According to their Blue Guide, developed in 2014, advertisements have to adhere to a series of rules, being the general understanding that they should: (1) comply with the particulars listed in the summary of product characteristics (SPC); (2) encourage the rational use of the product by presenting it objectively and without exaggerating its qualities; and (3) not be misleading. In addition to the general regulations, there are more specific rules which limit the ways an ad can be marketed, such as, "Advertising to the public should not suggest that one product is better than (or equivalent to) another identifiable treatment or product, or that the effects of taking it are guaranteed" (Blue Guide, 2014, p. 25, section 5.3). Restrictions, such as the example above, play a defining part in what the advertisers can and cannot use as arguments, thus restraining the possibilities of choice.
The discussion on the opportunities and constraints of the arguments leads to the argumentation stage of over-the-counter drug advertisement. The institutional aim and preconditions defined in the activity type, in combination with the regulations, require advertisers to advance pragmatic argumentation in direct support of the prescriptive standpoint: "Consumers for whom X is
suitable, should use product X". As discussed in the article Argumentative Patterns in Over-the-Counter Medicine by Snoeck Henkemans (2016), pragmatic argumentation in support of a prescriptive standpoint can be said to be the main argumentative pattern in pharmaceutical promotion. Such a pattern is described by a certain group of argumentative moves used particularly with a singular kind of difference of opinion and type of standpoint, in which only a precise argument scheme, or combination of argument schemes, is used in a particular argument structure. Argumentative patterns can be characteristic of the way argumentative discourse is usually conducted in a singular activity type. This is mainly the case when the pattern is closely connected with the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering pertaining to the communicative activity type, in this stance, over-the-counter drug advertisement. These “prototypical” argumentative patterns are revealed by the occurrence of institutional preconditions, in this case, the rules and guidelines determined by the Blue Guide.
The regulations restrain rather tightly what is possible within the realm of arguments. One of the rules states that the product’s therapeutic indication must always be included in any ad; therefore, one of the arguments that has to be present is the beneficial effect that the drug offers to the consumer. Moreover, it can be assumed that the main reason a buyer chooses a particular drug is to achieve a positive effect on whichever health problem they experience. Therefore, the main argument for over-the-counter drug promotion is a pragmatic argument, in which it is argued that the action recommended in the standpoint will lead to the desired, beneficial result. When this is not expected to offer enough support, other positive effects can
be added as part of a coordinative argumentation. The standpoint that a certain action should be carried (in this case buying a certain drug) is defended by focusing on the fact that the action will lead to an agreeable outcome - to decrease, or solve, a particular health condition. By posing that argument, advertisers try to convince consumers to purchase their drug by making evident the positive effects it will bring. The positive prescriptive standpoint in combination with the pragmatic argument scheme is, according to Snoeck Henkemans (2016), the basic argumentative pattern in over-the-counter medicine advertisements, which may be extended in a number of ways in anticipation of the critical reactions consumers might pose.
After the protagonist has offered his arguments according to the opportunities, constraints, and patterns previously discussed, the fourth stage, the concluding stage, of the critical discussion is achieved. Here, the parties finalize their differences of opinion and decide on the outcome of the discussion. Since, in this activity type, the dialogue is implicit, what the parties have agreed upon will not be clear. Thus neither, the protagonist or antagonist, will explicitly withdraw their standpoints or doubts. The outcome can, however, be inferred from the perlocutionary effect of a convinced consumer buying the marketed drug, which can be reconstructed as a retraction of the implicit doubt. If there were still disbelief, the consumer would not have purchased the drug, and the discussion would have a negative outcome for the advertiser.
2.2. Strategic Maneuvering Framework
As laid out in the introduction of this thesis, strategic maneuvering concerns three components: (1) topical potential, (2) audience demand, and (3) presentational devices. Through critical discussion, I will connect these elements with the activity type being discussed in this chapter. The connections here are chiefly based on Wierda's thesis (2016) Experience-based Authority Argumentation in Direct-to-Consumer Medical Advertisements.
The first element involves the choices that can be made amongst the topical potential of a certain activity type. In order to balance their dialectical and rhetorical aims, arguers have to make the most opportune selection from the maneuvers available. In the case presented herein, an arguer's choice is varied but restricted by the Blue Guide, and by the constraints of the activity type. What this means is that the advertiser must be committed to the prescriptive standpoint that consumers should buy a certain medicine and use the pragmatic argument scheme to defend it. In all direct-to-consumer ads, since the discussion is implicit, the protagonist cannot talk the antagonist into accepting certain premises as common starting points, however, they can try to elicit certain concessions from the reader. A way to do this is by posing questions to narrow down the possible starting points. Moreover, advertisers can put forward one, or more, pragmatic arguments to support the prescriptive standpoint, which typically explore the desirable consequences of using a specific medical product.
The second element is the adaptation to audience demand, which is related to the correlation between the moves and the requirements of the
targeted audience. The targeted consumers for over-the-counter advertisements are broad and varied because of the fact that anyone is able to obtain these drugs, and many people purchase them before even experiencing any symptoms at all. As mentioned before, promoters will try to narrow the audience to get the attention of a particular buyer group, for example, mothers or allergy sufferers. As for the argumentative means, Wierda (2016) mentions that advertisers adapt to the audience demands by anticipating specific counter-arguments or reactions. By foreseeing criticisms, the promoter can increase the chances of its arguments being accepted. The adaption is also paramount to fill-in the knowledge gap between pharmaceuticals and consumers.
The final constituent, presentational devices, pertain to the specific communicative means used to present standpoints and arguments. In over-the-counter drug promotion, the standpoint remains implicit and the starting points are extensive, which makes how they are presented to the public essential to the success of the protagonist. The choice of the propositions advanced can make a significant difference in the outcome of the discussion, and the language used needs to be carefully appointed so that all the potential users are able to understand it. Also related to this point, it is essential for advertisers to pay attention to the balance between persuasion and information, to comply with the institutional points of over-the-counter drug advertisement, and also to adhere to the rules stated in the Blue Guide. The guide states that ads cannot be misleading and must present the characteristics of the product in a truthful and transparent manner, which need to be presented in a marketable way so it appeals to consumers.
2.3. Conclusion
In this chapter, I analyzed the activity type of over-the-counter drug advertisement which is a mixture between promotional and medical domains and, subsequently, have a hybrid institutional point. I also examined the critical discussion stages related to non-prescription ads, connecting each stage to its empirical counterpart. The possible strategic maneuvers in this activity type were also explored.
Throughout the chapter, I made clear the starting points of over-the-counter drug ads, the prescriptive standpoint ("Consumers for whom product X is suitable, should then use product X"), and the main argument scheme used in over-the-counter drug promotion. Moreover, the regulations within the United Kingdom for OTC drugs were discussed, clarifying the constraints of the field.
Having made evident the starting points, the possible argumentative moves, the outcomes, opportunities, and restrictions, will allow me to better identify the available sound moves in non-prescription ads, in order to develop pertinent criteria for determining arguments potentially deemed unsound. Also, knowing the stages of the critical discussion will help me analyze whether advertisements are proceeding correctly in accordance with aforementioned criteria, which makes spotting fallacies easier.
In the next part, I will discuss the basic argumentative pattern of OTC drug advertisement activity type, which is, as previously shown, pragmatic argumentation. The following pages will focus on how the pragmatic argumentation scheme works, how it develops in over-the-counter medical promotion, and the possible sub-arguments. To exemplify the pattern, I will
use printed ads sampled from a variety of non-prescription drugs sold in the United Kingdom, since the rules I analyzed in this chapter are from the country.
Chapter 3. Pragmatic Argumentation in Non-Prescription Medical Advertisement
In the previous chapter I discussed the four stages of over-the-counter drug advertisement activity type and the argumentative pattern of it. Therefore, I will now address how the pattern works and how it is used in non-prescription medical promotion. First, I will verify the structure of the pragmatic argument scheme and explain what this scheme entails. Further on, I will demonstrate, with the help of examples, how the different forms of the pragmatic argumentation are used in the ads.
Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, and Snoeck Henkemans (2002) explain that an argument can only be deemed as acceptable if it is conclusive as a defense, or refutation, and if it fits into one of the possible argument schemes. The argument scheme is the way the standpoint and the arguments are linked together; the schemes show the relation between both. If the relation does not work, then the argument is not acceptable. It is relevant to point out that the tools for testing the soundness of an argument depend on the argument scheme, which makes this chapter necessary for the continuity of the thesis and its final goal of creating criteria for determining sound argumentation in OTC drug advertisements.
There are three possible argument schemes in pragma-dialects study, the argumentation based on a symptomatic relation, the one based on analogy relation, and, finally, one based on a causal relation. The focus here will be on the latter of which since it is most commonly found in over-the-counter medical advertisements, as demonstrated in the previous chapter.
Argument schemes differ due to their distinguished assessment criteria. For each scheme, there is a different set of critical questions to analyze if the structure has been correctly applied; these questions represent the criticism expected from arguers by antagonists, and serve as a point of departure for the protagonist, to know what argumentative moves should be put forward in reaction to the questions.
3.1. The Causal Argument Scheme
In a casual argument scheme, a link between the cause and consequence is formed to defend the standpoint; an example would be: "You should put on a jacket; it is cold outside". The causal relation can happen in a manner of cause and effect, as shown in the previous example, or as a statement of a means to an end connection, or even an action that leads to a prescribed reaction. In all cases, it is always suggested that one thing leads to another, and the standpoint should be accepted based on these premises. When evaluating this scheme, it must be proved that the cause is irrefutably linked to the effect. Van Eemeren, Grotendoorst, and Snoeck Henkemans (2002) represent the argument scheme for this relation as follows:
Y is true of X, because: Z is true of X and: Z leads to Y.
(The reverse order of this structure is also possible.)
Three main critical questions are related to the causal argument scheme, and if the scheme is applied correctly, then these questions can be
answered satisfactorily. But if one, or more, fail to be answered in a acceptable manner, and the argument is still maintained by the protagonist, then the argument scheme has been violated, which means a fallacy has been committed. The critical questions for the pragmatic argument scheme related to medical promotion will be discussed at the end of this part and the fallacies will follow in chapter four, specifically in relation to the inquiries posed by this scheme, and moreover, to the over-the-counter drug advertisement activity type.
One sub-type of the causal relation is the pragmatic argument scheme, which is the focal point of this thesis. This scheme entails that the standpoint recommends a certain course of action and that the argumentation consists of summing up the consequences of adopting a certain course of action.
3.2. The Pragmatic Argument Scheme Related to Over-the-Counter Drug Advertisement
The term ‘pragmatic argumentation’, used in the pragma-dialectical theory, comes from the Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s description (1969, pp. 266). Other references for this argument are ‘means-end argumentation’, ‘instrumental argumentation’, ‘teleological reasoning’, ‘practical reasoning’, and ‘argumentation on the basis of advantage/disadvantage’. In an effort to be consistent throughout the whole thesis, I will continue to use the designation pragmatic argumentation.
In pragma-dialectics, as elucidated by van Eemeren (2016), argument sub-schemes, such as the pragmatic, are distinguished from each other when the critical questions particular to the sub-type initiate a disparate dialectical
path. Pragmatic argumentation works as a sub-type because the pertinent critical questions are specifications of those belonging to the general causal argument scheme. A distinctive element of pragmatic argumentation is that it can only be useful in offering conclusive support of a prescriptive standpoint if, in a positive case, the desirability of the result is clearly beyond doubt; or, from a negative standpoint, its undesirability.
Following this progression, Weirda (2016) shows that one of the ways to understand the use of a particular argument scheme is to verify its institutional requirements. If a certain institutional context limits the use of particular schemes, which is the case for non-prescription drug advertisement, “then the discussion parties are considered to have agreed upon these rules by their act of entering into an argumentative discussion in that particular institutional context, without the need to explicitly state their agreement" (pp. 51,52). From the activity type highlighted in this thesis, it can be said that the agreement happens once an advertiser puts forward an ad, in accordance with the United Kingdom rules for non-prescription drug promotion, and a consumer interacts with it. But, in fact, the consumer often knows very little about the guidelines for health advertisement and about the principles of drugs, which creates a wide gap in knowledge between the protagonist and antagonist. Therefore, it is not possible to state that the discussion parties have agreed upon all the rules. However, in engaging with an advertisement, consumers realize the clear intention of selling certain products, so it can be stated that they enter the discussion knowing what to expect.
Another point of consideration regarding the particularity of this sub-type is that compromises two statements: an empirical one about the consequences of the action referred to in the standpoint, and a normative one about the desirability, or undesirability, of the consequences. The standpoint of pragmatic argumentation prescribes the creation of either a positive obligation, or a negative one. In over-the-counter drug promotion, the prescriptive standpoint is always positive, since it is a call for action affirming certain medicine should be bought. According to Jory (2011), the material premise of the pragmatic argument is complex, and it can be split into two propositions: one causal, such as, ‘Action X leads to consequence Y’; and one evaluative, that is, ‘Consequence Y is (un)desirable.’
Numerous cases of pragmatic argumentation can be identified in the media, especially when dealing with healthcare ads. The examples which I will share have been sourced from UK magazines and newspapers found online. Before analyzing the material, we need to know the basic structure for this scheme. Van Eemeren (2016) suggests the following arrangement:
1 Action X should be carried out, because
1.1 Action X will lead to positive result Y, and 1.1’ If an action of type X [such as X] leads to a positive result of type Y [such as Y], then that action should be carried out.
Snoeck Henkemans (2016) adapts this scheme into the pattern used in non-prescription medical promotions, which transforms it into:
1 Consumers for whom product X it is suitable (who suffer from condition Z) should use product X, because
1.1 Using product X will have a desirable effect Y on the consumer's health, and
1.1' If using product X will have a beneficial effect Y (healing condition Z) on the consumer’s health, then the consumer should purchase product X.
To show the pattern in real-life, I will verify seven ads broadcasted in the UK media, and found online. Albeit each highlight a different kind of argument, all follow the same principle and use the same kind of defense. Some have a simple structure, while others use complex argumentation to defend the prescriptive standpoint.
The first example is the ad on the left side, which is part of a series of ads the vitamin pill Centrum broadcasted some time ago about feeling young. The argumentation for this ad can be analyzed as follows:
1. (Consumers who want to feel younger, should use Centrum)
1.1. (Using Centrum has the desirable effect of making the consumer feel younger)
dressing young
1'.1 If centrum makes make people feel younger (positive result), consumers wanting that should use Centrum
When thinking about strategic maneuvering here, it can be said that the three elements, audience demand, presentational devices, and topical potential, are attended. The ad tackles a desire which the older population holds, feeling young (audience demand), and uses a simple, direct, and catchy ad (presentation device) to address this specific public, and by choosing a topic close to them (topical potential).
Another illustration is the ad below for Beechams, a drug for cold and flu symptoms, which can be interpreted as:
1. (Consumers who are suffering from cold and flu, should use Beechams); 1.1 Using Beechams will make you get your spark back (desirable effect); 1'.1 If using Beechams will get your spark back, then you should purchase Beechams.
The cases above show the prototypical pattern for over-the-counter drug advertisement, which entails a prescriptive positive standpoint with
positive consequences. However, other combinations are possible, and, even though the standpoint maintains its positive nature, desirable and undesirable effects can change and other arguments can be added to the main pattern. It is relevant, also, to take notice of the fact that advertisers are always trying to find new alternatives to make consumers buy their products, since in such an field as non-prescription drugs, all medicines vary only slightly in terms of effects, making it crucial to create eye-catching pieces that do more than simply state the obvious.
One example of an ad that uses sub-arguments to defend their standpoint is the advertisement for the headache painkiller Advil. This promotional piece inserts a symptomatic argument by means of the image with an experience-based
authority argument, which is the only type allowed by the United Kingdom drug advertisement guidelines, to make their point more convincing.
1. (Consumers with a headache should use Advil)
1.1. (Advil cures headaches) 1.1.1. Advil helps people, like the Yoga instructor Lacey, do what they love;
1'.1 If you want to do what you love, you should use Advil. 1'.1.1 Take action, take Advil
The maneuvering here is clear. The advertisers maneuvered the guidelines to use an authority argument, choosing the only kind allowed by the UK law. By using an experience-based argument (presentational devices), they make the drug more credible and relatable; and by choosing the phrase “Advil helps me do what I love” they associate the pills with desirable consequences that everyone wants (topical potential).
The second ad is for Nurofen, a non-prescription drug for pain relief. In the advertisement, which was published in magazines, we can see a man going towards the
drainage. The image can have many interpretations, which is part of the ad's appeal. The argumentation here can be reconstructed as:
1. (Consumers who suffer from pain, should use Nurofen);
1.1 (Not using Nurofen will make you not show up for work (undesirable effect));
1.1.1 Not showing up to for work will make you be called to the office; 1'.1 If you want to show up, then you should use Nurofen.
Another illustration that follows the same premise is the ad bellow for the Day&Night Nurse, a medicine for cold and flu which uses a subordinative argument structure with pragmatic arguments.
1 (Consumers who suffer from cold/flu should take Day&Night Nurse)
1.1 (Not using Day&Night Nurse will make you miss out due to illness)
1.1.1 (If you miss out negative consequences will follow)
1.1.1.1 You will miss interviews, as it happens to this girl, and have to move back to your parents’ house
1'.1 If you don’t want to be afraid of missing out, then you should take Day&Night Nurse.
One more example of different types of pragmatic argumentation is the advertisement below for ProPlus, a drug to relieve tiredness. The ad targets students, a clear strategic maneuver focusing on the audience demand and choosing a topic and image very close to
the targeted public’s daily life. 1. (Students who experience tiredness, should use ProPlus)
1.1 (Not using ProPlus will have undesirable consequences)
1.1.1. (Such as getting teased by your friends/waking up in embarrassing situations)
1'.1.1 Proplus will make you stay alert
Finally, I want to illustrate a different type of ad which is a play on women’s feelings when experiencing period pains. The ad is cleverly done and there can be many interpretations to the image, making it very eye-catching. The promotional piece is for the
aforementioned pain reliever brand Nurofen which has a specific drug for this kind of ache, Nurofen Menstrual.
1. (Consumers who suffer from period pain should use Nurofen Menstrual) 1. 1 You do not have to be a man to not have pain,
1.1.1 (Nurofen can be a solution)
1'.1 If you do not want to have pain, then you should buy Nurofen Menstrual
After analyzing ads which use the pragmatic argument scheme to defend their point of view, I can now move on to detail some of the subtypes of this scheme, a few of which were already introduced in the promotional pieces above. After mentioning the possible sub arguments, I will discuss the critical questions that can prompt more complex argumentation, finalizing the chapter.
3.3. Subtypes of the Pragmatic Argumentation in Non-Prescription Drug Promotion and the Critical Questions
The critical questions serve to evaluate the pragmatic argument scheme, but also to highlight the possible subtypes of this kind of argumentation, which is the reason that I am focusing on them at the end of the chapter. However, the questions will only be mentioned here, not thoroughly explored, which will only happen in the next chapter. The argument scheme represents the inference rule underlying the argumentation, and the critical questions point to the conditions a pragmatic argument should fulfill for that inference rule to be applied correctly. Van Eemeren (2016) suggests the following critical questions for pragmatic argumentation in the medical field:
1. Do actions of type X lead to results of type Y? (does buying the medicine X leads to solving problem Y?)
2. Is result Y really positive (i.e., desirable)/negative (i.e., undesirable)?
3. Does action X not have any major negative (i.e., undesirable) side effects?
The way in which these are put into practice depends on the context of the communicative activity type, and based on this statement, Snoeck Henkemans (2016) added two questions to the ones listed above:
4. Are there are any other actions that need to be taken together with action X to achieve result Y?
All the critical questions play an important part in analyzing the soundness of the prototypical pattern of over-the-counter drug ads. Also, we may take into account that advertisers attempt to make the strongest case possible in order to win the consumer's attention by dealing with the doubts expected from their public, and respecting the institutional constraints posed by the Blue Guide.
In anticipation of the first and second critical questions, advertisers may offer further support for premise 1.1 (Action X will lead to positive result Y) with symptomatic argumentation, such as authority-based arguments. Nevertheless, only experienced-based authority arguments are allowed in the United Kingdom. Moreover, other causal argumentation can be used, in a coordinative fashion, to defend the efficacy of certain drugs, such as stating the specific ingredients which cause the product’s beneficial effect.
The third critical question casts doubt over the bridging premise 1.1' (if an action X leads to a certain positive result Y, then that action should be carried out) and can be defended with a symptomatic argument, such as affirming that the medicine is authorized, or that the benefits are clinically proven. However, UK regulations prevent arguments affirming the product is "safe for consumption" or that is has "no proved side-effects". The forth question deals with the fact that, typically, consumers have a choice between very similar products within the non-prescription medicines, and therefore a defense of why to choose a particular drug to achieve the beneficial result is very relevant. The fifth question is important due to the fact that the effectiveness of a certain medicine can, sometimes, depend on other factors such as eating properly or sleeping adequately, so that other actions may
indeed be required in order for the positive result to occur.
Summing up what is stated above, van Eemeren (2016) explains that if the critical questions are addressed in an ad, or responded to in the body of the discourse, it means complex argumentation needs to be put forward. That is when the subtypes of the pragmatic argument scheme in OTC medical promotion come into play. Pragmatic argumentation in the health domain can be complemented with other pragmatic arguments such as stating further consequences (desired or undesired) that could happen. On the other hand, this kind of argumentation can be also supplemented by symptomatic arguments concerning the positive, or negative, qualities of a drug. Below I share the subtypes suggested by Snoeck Henkemans (2016), which can subside the main pragmatic argument used in non-prescription drug advertisement.
As the basic pattern, we have:
1 Consumers for whom it is suitable [i.e. who suffer from a relevant condition and for whom it is not contra-indicated] should use medicinal product X.
1.1 Using medicinal product X will have beneficial effect Y on the consumer’s health.
1.1’ If using a medicinal product of type X will have a beneficial effect of type Y on the consumer’s health, then the consumer should use product X.
The possible extensions are based on the basic pattern, and support one of the premises as an attempt to deal with the critical questions; the
regulations for over-the-counter drug promotion also need to be taken into consideration here since the rules restrain certain types of claims, such as celebrity endorsed advertisements, which are not allowed in the UK. Despite the regulations, claims can be made as a foundation for 'safety' or 'there is no better alternative' premises, which answer questions three (Does action X have any major negative side-effects?) and five (Could result Y be achieve by other actions?). These claims are usually based on a symptomatic argument scheme; however, the premises of the basic pattern can also be defended by coordinative argumentation using other pragmatic arguments.
The propositions below offer support for premise 1.1 (Using medicinal product X will have beneficial effect Y on the consumer's health):
1.1.1a Achieving effect Y is a means of realizing the desirable effect of preventing or diminishing a health risk. [pragmatic argument]
And/Or:
1.1.1b That using X will produce effect Y has been clinically proven. [symptomatic argument, more specifically a science based authority argument; not allowed in the case of traditional herbal medicine, according to the UK law]
Or:
1.1.1b Product X is a licensed/authorized medicine. [symptomatic argument, legal/competent authority argument]
Or:
1.1.1b Active ingredient I of product X produces the beneficial effect Y. [causal ingredient argument]
As a support for bridging premise 1.1’, the suggestions underneath are possible:
1.1’.1 X has no known side effects/ X has a good safety profile. Or:
1.1’.1 There is no better way than X to achieve the beneficial effect.
In the article, Argumentative patterns using symptomatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements (2017), Snoeck Henkemans further explains the possibilities of arguments deriving from the basic argument pattern of over-the-counter drug advertisement. She argues that advertisers usually choose symptomatic arguments to defend their claims and use specific presentational devices to do so. For example, according to the PAGB guidelines (2014), promotional medical material cannot affirm without qualification that a product is safe. In response advertisers maneuver strategically to leave the safety claim implicit and only offer arguments that support this premise, such as "it is approved by the government" or "it is clinically tested". Also, only comparisons concerning secondary qualities of a product are allowed. Therefore, advertisers will present arguments such as: "drug X works faster" or "it lasts longer" to show that their advertised drug is the best available option. Another way to defend this point is to emphasize the uniqueness of the ingredients of the product, or the uniqueness of the way it works. Moreover, specific types of authority argumentation can be advanced to justify the safety and "better alternative" claims. For instance, a populist argumentation showing the number of people using the product could be employed in support of the drug’s acceptability; or an appeal to tradition
argumentation such as: "Product X has been used for generations". Just as with the safety claim, the “there is no better alternative” claim may also be supported by an argument from legal authority (i.e., the argument that the product is licensed.)
With more possibilities for argumentation, the chances of striking the balance between the dialectical and the rhetorical goals diminishes. When the balance is not equalized, the chances for fallacies increase. Often this imbalance occurs when one of the sides is not receiving enough attention, usually the dialectical, as advertisers try to win the discussion. Focusing exclusively on the effectiveness side of the argumentation process creates precedents for the rules of the critical discussion to be disregarded, causing the dispute to be derailed.
3.4. Conclusion
In chapter two I delimited the prototypical pattern for the over-the-counter drug advertisement activity type. In this chapter I discussed the pattern which resumes as a prescriptive positive standpoint followed by the main argumentation using the pragmatic argument scheme and the sub arguments following a symptomatic relation.
I explained how the pragmatic argument scheme works in terms of the over-the-counter drug advertisement activity type, and used the argument model proposed by Snoeck Henkemans in her paper Argumentative Patterns in Over-the-Counter Medicine Advertisements (2016) to analyze some examples of non-prescription ads. Throughout this part, I also presented the critical questions for this specific argumentative activity type, and the possible
arguments to answer the questions.
In the next chapter, I will verify the fallacious moves that can happen in non-prescription medical promotion focusing on the fallacies that can occur when the Argument Scheme Rule (Rule No. Seven) is broken. To identify the mentioned derailments, the critical questions posed here will be used, and the examples presented will be further analyzed. The verification of fallacious moves will give me the opportunity to determine the criteria for sound, and unsound, arguments within the discussed context, which will be the main focus of the next pages.
Chapter 4. Fallacious Moves within the Over-the-Counter Drug Advertisement
Before discussing fallacious moves, which will be the last part of this thesis before the conclusion, it is relevant to mention that only argumentative discourses can be fully, and methodically, screened for fallacies (van Eemeren, 2010). The reason is that the norms provided by rules for critical discussion apply only if the discourse is aimed at resolving a difference of opinion on the merits. Having detailed over-the-counter drug advertisement as an argumentative activity type in the second chapter, we can proceed without limitations to analyze if fallacious moves are present in this type of discourse.
Argumentative discourse can present shortcomings in many ways, being it due to fallacies or other mistakes that can alter the discussion. And, even when only dealing with fallacious moves, there are numerous which can happen. In order to be more precise I will only be addressing fallacies that occur when the Argument Scheme Rule is violated. This rule states that a standpoint cannot be viewed as conclusively defended if the justification is not done by means of an appropriate argument scheme and used in the correct way. In chapter three I showed how the pragmatic argument scheme is the prototypical pattern for non-prescription medical promotion, which is where the focus of fallacies will be. More specifically, I will also show the fallacies that can happen when the pragmatic argument scheme is breached.
In this section, I will first give a definition of fallacies according to pragma-dialectics and strategic maneuvering, and explain the argument scheme rule detailing how it can be broken. Then, I will move on to discuss
how to spot a fallacious move using the critical questions and the context, which will lead to a debate about how to establish the sound, and unsound, arguments. Based on the debate, criteria will be determined on how to point out fallacies in an over-the-counter drug advertisement discourse. Finally, I will return to the ads examined in chapter 3 to verify their soundness and how they fit into the criteria.
4.1 Fallacious Moves According to Pragma-Dialects and Strategic Maneuvering
Strategic maneuvering implies that every argumentative move aims to serve two goals simultaneously, being reasonable and being effective throughout every stage of a critical discussion. Arguers, nevertheless sometimes, fail to control the tension between arguing reasonably and effectively, and the balance between the two falls towards one of the sides. When the reasonable aim prevails, the damage is only for the protagonist who did not manage to argue effectively; on the other hand, when the rhetorical aim gains the advantage, the whole discussion is harmed since one or more rules for critical discussion have been violated. Therefore, the strategic maneuvering has been "derailed" because the dialectical criteria for carrying out strategic maneuvers have not been satisfied. The violation damages the process of resolving a difference of opinion, so the strategic maneuvering must be deemed fallacious.
A broad definition of a fallacy, based on the pragma-dialectics theory, is any argumentative move that hinders the resolution of a difference of opinion by violating one, or more, of the ten rules for critical discussion. Van
Eemeren (2010) complements this view with the strategic maneuvering notion by affirming: “All derailments of strategic maneuvering are fallacies in the sense that they violate one or more of the rules for critical discussion and all fallacies can be viewed as derailments of strategic maneuvering” (pp. 198). To identify fallacies, and assess the soundness of a critical discussion, all complex argumentation must be separated into singled arguments, and all the implicit arguments need to be made explicit. Then, we must determine if the performance of these speech acts agrees in every particular case with the rules for critical discussion. This means judging whether the moves contribute to the resolution of the difference of opinion in accordance to the dialectical standards. Once we add strategic maneuvering, the rhetorical goals need to be accounted for as well, but only the violation of the reasonable aim can harm the settlement of a critical discussion.
Moreover, fallacy judgments need to be context dependent, since specific circumstances apply to different scenarios and should be taken into account when evaluating an argumentative move. In regard to the medical context, guidelines are essential and must be part of the evaluation process. An argument that fails to follow any of the rules proposed for over-the-counter drug advertisement should be determined as fallacious since it hinders the resolution of the discussion, placing the antagonist at a disadvantage. Therefore, once the advertiser advances an argument that does not comply with the guidelines contemplated in the Blue Guide the argumentative move should be deemed fallacious. For example, promotional pieces must comply by (1) encouraging the rational use of the product by presenting it objectively and without exaggerating its qualities, and (2) not being misleading.
Pointing out a fallacious move, however, is often a difficult job since there is not always a clear-cut distinction between sound and unsound arguments. This distinction may change due to context, regulations, or other external factors. Moreover, in argumentative practice, or in any kind of advertisement, fallacies will often reveal themselves as strategic maneuvers that apparently comply with the critical discussion rules, but in reality, do not. And even when a rule violation is deliberate, it is imperative for the protagonist to emphasize that his general commitment to reasonableness still stands. If it is been made transparent that the commitment was withdrawn, then the desired persuasive effect of the argumentative move is lost immediately (van Eemeren, 2010).
The relevance of an argument should also be taken into consideration when evaluating an argumentative discourse. This is especially true in the case of advertisements which often make use of images, metaphors, and ambiguity to sell products. According to the pragma-dialectical theory of relevance (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004), arguers must be true in what they state, and they must offer only arguments that are relevant to the present discussion. Based on these assumptions, we should look for the best fit of meaning in advertisements even when an ad seems inexplicable or meaningless. However, Slade (2002) argues that “If the premises are not true or the argument does not follow then, even with our very best attempts to be charitable, the conclusion simply does not follow” (pp. 175).
When the conclusion does not follow, it is possible to say that the argument scheme is either inadequate or incorrectly used. Both cases lead to
Argument Scheme Rule violations, and, therefore, fallacious moves that will be further examined in the next topic.
4.2. The Argument Scheme Rule and the Critical Question Pertaining to the Pragmatic Argument Scheme
Each of the ten rules for critical discussion in pragma-dialectics has a distinct function in keeping the argumentative discourse on track by excluding barriers to resolve a difference of opinion based on the merits. Rules from one through five prevent the discussion parties from hindering the presentation of standpoints and argument; on the other hand, rules six through ten deal with the moves that can harm the discussion in the argumentation stage. The argument scheme rule (rule number seven) is part of this last group, and when one of the parties utilizes an inappropriate argument scheme, or applies a scheme incorrectly, then he/she violates it.
In the case of the pragmatic argument scheme as described in the book Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation (2002), the wrong use of the scheme leads to the fallacy of confusing facts with value judgments (argumentum ad consequentiam) in which a factual proposition is defended by a normative argument pointing to an undesirable effect. For example, "it can’t be raining, since that would mean I cannot go swimming"; and the incorrect application of the scheme can result in the fallacy of post hoc ergo
propter hoc -- after this, therefore, because of this. An example of this would
be: "I wore my purple sweater and got the job, therefore my purple sweater gives me luck”. Further, the fallacy of the slippery slope suggests that adopting a certain course of action will lead to things going from bad to worse.
If all the critical questions pertaining to the argument scheme are answered satisfactorily then, in principle, the argumentative move is sound regarding the argument scheme rule. Leaving out answers is not in itself a fallacious move, Wierda (2016) explains. Nonetheless, in an implicit discussion the protagonist has to address all critical questions that may be raised by the antagonist, therefore, no question can be left unanswered. Refusing to answer questions, or preventing a critical question from being asked, counts as violations of the Argument Scheme Rule and must be dealt with as fallacies, since moves like this harm the resolution of a difference of opinion on the merits.
Moreover, critical questions are ways by which the antagonist inquires the opposing party if there are circumstances in the context – as depicted by the material starting points of the discussion – that could hinder the transference of acceptability from the material premises to the conclusion. Jory (2011) further clarifies that if the protagonist desires to maintain his argumentation, then it is essential for him/her to show that situations in the context that could count as ‘obstacles’ are not present. The advertiser, in this case, needs to defend that the acceptability of the material starting points of the discussion can be transferred onto the conclusion. For example, one of the starting points for a drug ad could be: "Suffering from headaches?", then the protagonist of this argument should prove the conclusion "Then take pill X" can indeed follow from the question. Additionally, it must be proved that both are acceptable and that there are no other contextual circumstances that could harm the process of transferring acceptability from the starting point to the conclusion.
Critical questions also evaluate the acceptability of the causal and evaluative propositions of the pragmatic argument scheme. The questions pertaining to the pragmatic argument scheme in regard to the over-the-counter activity type are depicted below, and will be addressed on the next point once I evaluate some of the ads proposed in chapter 3.
1. Do actions of type X lead to results of type Y? (Does buying the medicine X leads to solving problem Y?)
2. Is result Y really positive (i.e., desirable)/negative (i.e., undesirable)?
3. Does action X not have any major negative/positive side effects? 4. Are there are any other actions that need that be taken together with action X to achieve result Y?
5. Could result Y not better be achieved by other actions?
Other than using the critical questions to evaluate the ads, the guidelines present in the Blue Guide need to always be taken into consideration and failing to comply with one of them will make the move fallacious.
4.3. Identifying Fallacies: Developing Criteria for Sound and Unsound Moves
Based on what has been said previously, it can be stated that the criteria for sound argumentation in over-the-counter drug advertisement are: being in accordance with the guidelines for medical promotion, satisfactorily
answering the critical questions pertaining to this activity type, and not violating the Argument Scheme Rule. Therefore, I will analyze the ads according to these criteria verifying if they answer the questions adequately, and if they are done in accordance with the rules highlighted in the Blue Guide. Based on both, I will determine if the ad is sound or unsound, and if it is the latter, then examine which fallacy it entails.
The first ad I will analyze is the Centrum one. This first analysis will serve as the model for the other examples. In this initial case, I will determine which questions are truly necessary to confirm the soundness of the ads, and from that devise more specific criteria for judging the following advertisements.
1’. (Consumers who want to feel younger, should use Centrum)
1’.1. (Using Centrum has the desirable effect of making the consumer feel younger)
1’.1.1. Feeling young is better than dressing young 1'.1.2 If Centrum makes make people feel younger (positive result), consumers wanting this should use Centrum
1. Do actions of type X lead to results of type Y? (Does buying the medicine X lead to solving problem Y?)
Not necessarily. Feeling young does not clearly follow from using the vitamin pill Centrum. People might feel more energy, or other similar effects, but it
