Question

where does the logic of this advertisement fall short? a it assumes the reader wants to lose weight. b there are no researchers from around the world that would test diet pills. c by saying \do you need to lose...\ it assumes the reader does in fact need to lose weight. d this pill doesnt require
idiculous food restrictions,\ yet it suppresses appetite, which implies eating less.

Explanation:

To determine the logical fallacy in the advertisement:

• Option A: Assuming the reader wants to lose weight is not a logical flaw in the ad's reasoning about the pill itself.
• Option B: The claim about no researchers testing diet pills is an unfounded assumption and not a logical flaw in the ad's internal logic.
• Option C: Asking "Do you need to lose..." is a question, not an assumption that the reader does need to lose weight.
• Option D: The ad claims the pill has no "ridiculous food restrictions" but also says it suppresses appetite (implying eating less, a form of food restriction), creating a contradiction. This is a logical flaw.

Answer:

D. This pill doesn't require "ridiculous food restrictions," yet it suppresses appetite, which implies eating less.