Ashley Bartlome

Math 1030-004
September 17, 2015
Dale Nelson
Commentary 1- Logical Fallacies in Maybelline
Logical fallacies are fascinating to me. Ive started to notice them all over in advertising,
TV shows, and my own thinking. One of the most interesting fallacies I found is for an
advertisement for a well-known makeup company called Maybelline. A copy of the
advertisement can be found at: http://stuffpoint.com/maybelline/image/185449/new-shineseduction-lipgloss-color-picture/.
There are several premises in the couple of sentences on this advertisement. The first is
that only their exclusive sculpting wand lavishes lips. The second is that using their lipstick
will make your lips feel as seductive as [they] look. The third is that there are 20 seductive
creams and shimmers and that the specific colors theyve picked are seductive. These words
combined with the model whos wearing bright red lipstick lead to an unstated conclusion that
wearing this new line of lipstick will make you sexier and more attractive.
There are several hidden assumptions in this add: the first being that certain colors that
Maybelline sells are seductive and there are other colors are not. Second that being seductive is
something you should actively pursue, and third that lipstick is essential for getting attention
from men. This hidden assumptions which the audience may or may not share, help support the
premises. However the premises are not valid and the argument is not sound. Their lipstick may
or may not make your lips more lavished, or feel seductive. And there are quite possibly other
colors of lipstick that might make you feel attractive. None of the premises for this argument are
true.

The way this ad is set up is an interesting technique for advertising. Obviously no one
needs make-up to survive, but in this campaign theyve associated their lipstick with something
most people see as positive and needed in their lives, i.e. being attractive and sexy. This creates a
logical fallacy. Just because the lipstick is associated with the feelings of being attractive and
chased after, does not mean that by putting on the lipstick youre going to be instantly more
attractive. What is attractive to one person may not be attractive to another, some men might find
bright lipstick as a turn off. Attractiveness is not the cut and dry science that this poster makes it
out to be. This is an appeal to emotion and the emotion is the basic human desire to belong and
feel wanted. With further thought this fallacy is actually insulting because another hidden
assumption in this advertisement is that you need this lipstick to be seductive, or that you do not
possess the ability by yourself; that you cant possibly find a way to be seductive without
wearing this lipstick.
Another fallacy in this advertisement is that of hasty generalization. The picture in the
advertisement shows a woman with bright lipstick and shes looking over the shoulder of a man.
This combined with the multiple link between the lipstick and the idea of seduction creates the
idea that the lipstick causes the wearer to attract more men (because lets be honest, this ad is
targeted towards women). The lipstick and the idea of seduction are linked several times on the
page giving the idea that one causes the other, but theres not actual proof. This argument, the
link between lipstick and seduction, exists because the advertisement has created it, not because
its a fact in reality. Millions of women have received attention from men without using lipstick
in the history of the planet, and many currently still do not use lipstick.
There are many more fallacies in this ad but hasty generalizations and an appeal to
emotions are the biggest. Its ironic that the advertisement that at first seems quite serious and

full of potential is actually quite flat and limiting once the logical fallacies have been identified.
The ad gives the appearance of opening the whole world to the audience, when in reality it is
limiting it.