6. bandwagon propaganda - the statement mentioned the number of people McDonalds has served hamburgers to, which expresses the essence of "bandwagon propaganda".
7. testimonial propaganda - an influential person, which in the case of the statement is an "artist", is involved to a particular product/service for marketing and advertising purposes.
8. name-calling - the advertisement statement presents negativity towards another food chain competitor for the purpose of making positive regards to itself. in other words, it brings the other party down to bring itself up.
III.
9. x - considering that the participants were shoppers from another section, the cat section, the possibility that they will be biased towards a "dog" food brand is low because most people from "cat" section are likely to not be knowledgeable about dog foods. To put it briefly, since existing favourability towards a particular "dog" food is likely to be low, the biasness is correspondingly low as well.
10. / - participants are generally polar opposites. adding to that fact is that they are asked for a single amenity that is obviously beneficial for the other and likely not really needed for the other, regardless that it is "random". thus, the situation for this item is classified as 'biased".
Answers & Comments
I've included explanation alongside the answers.
Answer:
II.
6. bandwagon propaganda - the statement mentioned the number of people McDonalds has served hamburgers to, which expresses the essence of "bandwagon propaganda".
7. testimonial propaganda - an influential person, which in the case of the statement is an "artist", is involved to a particular product/service for marketing and advertising purposes.
8. name-calling - the advertisement statement presents negativity towards another food chain competitor for the purpose of making positive regards to itself. in other words, it brings the other party down to bring itself up.
III.
9. x - considering that the participants were shoppers from another section, the cat section, the possibility that they will be biased towards a "dog" food brand is low because most people from "cat" section are likely to not be knowledgeable about dog foods. To put it briefly, since existing favourability towards a particular "dog" food is likely to be low, the biasness is correspondingly low as well.
10. / - participants are generally polar opposites. adding to that fact is that they are asked for a single amenity that is obviously beneficial for the other and likely not really needed for the other, regardless that it is "random". thus, the situation for this item is classified as 'biased".