PCU

Watching PCU we were asked to find one logical fallacy that coincides with this movie. I think that Hasty Generalization is one and this is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. I believe this was one because by watching this movie a person who hasn’t set foot in college would already get bad vibes about it and would think negative because of some of the things portrayed. For example: what college do you know that you walk into there dorm room and they smoking and got cigarette buts all over the place. Also the visiting senior on the first day already got a mental and physical picture of what college life is just by that first day visit. But what he doesn’t realize is that is not how college life really is. So a person watching the movie will think that this is how college life is when it really isn’t. Okay yes, you do have different clubs or organizations trying to promote their causes but not to that extreme. What happened to the studying, hanging out, classroom settings, networking, and etc? That’s what the majority of college is about but that was not portrayed in this movie. All we mainly saw is the negative with the drinking, partying, and etc. Yes there are college students that engage in that type of activity but not all the time. So hasty generalization is the correct logical fallacy because by watching PCU you will get the wrong impression and already have this outlook on college. From that movie it will not be that positive but who will have to actually wait till you get there to realize it’s not as bad as it is portrayed.

Death of an Innocent

McCandless character probably does not exist and if so it is very rare. And yes society has changed over the past 15 years that it is all about economic. McCandless was an Emory grad student who’s major was history/anthropology which informs me that he was very intelligent. Because, first of all he was accepted into Emory and graduated with a degree such as that. What grad student do you know graduates with they major and doesn’t do anything with it to earn a living and earn money. But by reading this story we learn that McCandless is not any ordinary college student. First of all he didn’t enjoy the party that he did attend. He wasn’t interested in Phi Beta Kappa he felt that “insisting that titles and honors were of no importance”, what college student is not interested in fraternities and sororities that’s the main thing on most college campuses. And lastly he wondered out in the forest wanting to be alone and money wasn’t an issue for him.

Money is the key to success in this society. Everyone is out to make themselves a little bit richer then the day before. Think about it: why do you think so many people waste money on lottery tickets? Because it’s mostly all about who comes out richer in the end or more successful. Unlike McCandless he had 20,000 dollars left out of his account and he put it all towards a relief fund. 99% of college or grad students if they had that kind of money would not give it away to any sort of fund. Mostly everyone relies on money. I noticed from my experience that if I have money in my pocket I’m content but once I go broke for a day or two it feels like a tragedy. And I’m quite sure that I’m not the only college students who feels like that when they are broke. No person in their right state of mind would give up everything to go on the type of adventure McCandless did. Society today is too stuck on competing with the person next to them, trying to come out better then them in anyway possible. And money is the main attraction, without money we wouldn’t have the things that we have now to set ourselves apart of the person next to us. At the same time it’s kind of sad that that’s all that people rely on now because we shouldn’t be so dependent on one thing. I think McCandless did a good thing to go out and better himself because he gave up the most important thing, money, and learned how to survive. Maybe it was a little extreme but no person in today’s society would give up money to go be alone and survive. Money is too much of a demand that without it people are unhappy. Think about “bums” they are without money but everyday they scrounge to get a nickel or dime out of someone in order to survive, because they feel that without it they can’t move on. But reading this story McCandless proved that you can survive without money for many, many days.

Aids and Advertisement

I don’t believe this advertisement appealed to consumers at all because I feel as though why should a picture make a consumer now want to help aid campaigns. It shouldn’t take a person to look at a picture to support aid victims. It should already be instilled in them to want to help people with aids. This clothing line to support aid victims I believe has no affect on the consumer because I know by me looking at this picture its not going to make me buy the product. Either I support aid victims or I don’t. Either I buy the product just because I want to contribute my money or I don’t. Not to sound harsh but that’s how it is. Looking at this advertisement may be sad because the person is suffering from aids but this shouldn’t be used to influence anyone to support aids. I feel like if a person wants to support aid victim then that’s what they should do because they feel like it’s a need. I understand why this picture was used it was used to influence the consumer to buy the product and the money spent will be used to go towards aid campaigns. But, either a person is going to look at the picture and be in “aww” and possibly buy the product or they wont. Like mentioned earlier a person who really wants to support aid victims will buy the product regardless of this advertisement. They already have it in their heart to want to help these people but not by being influenced by a picture. A picture shouldn’t influence you to support any campaign if it’s something that you want to do it will already be in your heart to buy the product and you knowing that, that is what the money is going towards. Me personally aids have been around for a long time and many people believed that it was a gay STD that was just transmitted by gay men. And then gay men brought it home and infect they wives or girlfriends. I mean some of that claim could be true and that can be a reason people still feel that Aids is such a horrible thing. Don’t get me wrong it is but then again babies are born with Aids and those are the ones that can’t help it. They came in this world innocent but infected by a non-innocent disease that they can’t get rid of. Those are the things people should consider when it comes down to helping aid campaigns. Everyone who has Aids it doesn’t mean they carelessly did unsafe sexual acts some people were born with it and couldn’t help it. So the point I’m making is we should take those things into consideration when buying a product to help aid campaigns and knowing that a picture does not influence the consumer because either they are going to buy the product regardless of how sad the picture wants to portray the aid victim or not.