The author selects different ads to support his arguments about the different appeals. By cherry-picking from the familiar, the author invites the reader to agree, and avoids a situation where he writes over the reader's head, which could cause the reader's support for the arguments to wane. Overall, Fowler is relatively successful. The article is not as concise as an argumentative essay should be, but in this case it is also meant as instructive. The author's tone detracts from the article, however, as it is too directly instructional. The other major flaw in the writing is that the author expends very little energy -- and only at the beginning -- presenting his case for the theoretical framework. This would have lent more credence to his case than name-dropping dozens of ads. The student reader is relatively sophisticated -- and Fowler knows this -- but the structure of the paper does not adequately address this sophistication due to the emphasis on examples over theoretical foundations.

The theoretical framework is discussed in paragraphs 1-16. At...

For example, paragraph 4 is thirteen lines long but states the obvious and provides only one study to back up the claim. Worse, the conclusion of paragraph 4 is simply a restating of the conclusion to paragraph 3, calling into question the necessity of those thirteen lines and the coherency of the author's argument. The last 2/3 of paragraph 8 is superfluous.
Paragraphs 12-16 outline some of the theoretical framework for the list and although this framework is not subject to rigorous testing the author presents the framework reasonably well. The research is presented sequentially, the paragraphs become shorter and tighter. This section of the article sets up the discussion of the different appeals, and performs that function well. Given that the audience is comprised of students, 12-16 is necessary and interesting, though it would be dry to other audiences. Overall, the 1-16 section lacks focus but eventually gets to the point of justifying the remainder…