An Analysis of a Car Salesman's Catch Phrase

A person is looking to buy a car from a second hand dealership. While there is no evidence to prove that the cars on the lot have been tampered with in any way, the buyer is still wary of the salesman’s claims of the cars being top-quality, given the reputation of this particular dealership. When the buyer is suspicious of a particular car’s condition, the salesman states: “This car is a bona fide beauty! I guarantee it will run.

”

Here, the legal phrase “bona fide” is being used in a non-legal context. This is trickery. This is trickery by appeal to authority, appeal to ignorance, and the equivocation fallacy. My first argument is that this is an appeal to authority. By using “bona fide” in this context, the salesman puts on an air of superiority over the buyer. With his language, he is tricking the buyer into believing that whatever he says is correct, that the car has no faults and is as good as he claims it is.

This is a fallacy as the salesman and the buyer are on equal terms regarding car quality and condition. The salesman knows what to say to sell a car but he does not inherently know more about cars than the buyer. The salesman is tricking the buyer. My second argument is that this is an appeal to ignorance.

The buyer has little to no knowledge about the car’s quality. If the salesman says that the car is “bona fide beauty”, indicating that the car is in good condition, the buyer has no concrete evidence to prove otherwise.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified

Proficient in: Transport

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

They cannot prove if the car has been tampered with until they already own the car and have used it for some time. Even if the buyer suspects that the car has been altered in some way or that they are being hoodwinked, they have no physical evidence to back up their claims. In this way, the salesman can use the fallacy of “You can’t prove I’m wrong, so I must be right.” The salesman is tricking the buyer. My third argument is that this is a fallacy of equivocation. The phrasing the salesman uses, “I guarantee it will run” could be loosely interpreted to fix several scenarios.

How long will the car run properly? Years? Months? Weeks? That is unknown. The buyer would have to purchase the car and take their chances with how long the car will run properly. The salesman himself might not even know how long, but it won’t matter, as he would have already received the money for the car. The salesman is tricking the buyer. In this context, the salesman is tricking the buyer with his use of “bona fide”. Using this legal phrase, the salesman is using fallacies in argumentation to achieve his goals. With an appeal to authority, he makes himself seem more important than he is. With an appeal to ignorance, he is certain that any wrongdoing cannot be proven. With the equivocation fallacy, the salesman uses ambiguous language that could interpreted in different ways. These arguments have proven that the salesman is tricking the buyer through his use of “bona fide”.