This image is presenting an argument with the use of logical fallacies. It is claiming that consuming meat results in similar health effects that smoking is known to cause. This advertisement is also claiming that the audience wouldn't let their child smoke, which the author of this image claims will produce the same health defects as smoking. Many questions of logic arise from this faulty advertisement. Why would someone let their child smoke? Why does that relate to eating meat in general? This is portraying the logical fallacy of false analogy. The advertisement is implying that consuming meat increases the risk of heart disease and cancer just like smoking, therefore, eating meat is just as bad for you as smoking. The audience of this advertisement is aware that consuming meat and smoking are not directly related and the characteristics of these two actions actually differ in the area that is being compared. In addition, this advertisement does not list any facts or statistics proving the claim they're presenting. Other logical fallacies that can be argued that are being employed in this advertisement are the fallacies "slippery slope" and "burden of proof". Although these specific fallacies were not listed on the lecture, they are still being utilized. This image is presenting the "slippery slope" fallacy by claiming that
if you allow A to happen, then it will result with B to also happen too, so therefore you should not allow A to happen in the first place. Lastly, the logical fallacy "burden of proof" is being employed because the statement made by the author of this advertisement is not followed by evidence.