When first looking at this at a reader may think that they should help to save wildlife because it is for the future. Or they may think wow this is a great idea I need to try and do my part". A counterargument may be that the person reading the ad may think "there are enough people in the world helping out" or they may even think "my contribution would never be enough to actually help". A source derogation could be
             "oh this is just another save the animals ad" or "who actually responds to these ads".
             Based on the responses I gave I do not think that this ad will be highly effective just because it is not very captivating it looks like an ad for an Alaskan cruise liner. I do not think that many attitudes will be changed because most people do not respond to ads like this that are in magazines because there is not enough impact. If it were to have been an ad on television there may be much more of an impact.
             This ad reads "We share the WATER...the Sky...the LAND..we share the FUTURE. They are using a change evaluation strategy by trying to convince us that people and wildlife share similar things including the future. So because we do share so much in common we should help to save the wildlife because they are similar to us.
             A reader may feel moved by the ad because it makes the connection that we are all similar. The reader may even feel sorry or sad for the animals because we are losing wildlife and the ad makes a correlation between us and the animals. Affective responses could change an entire response to the ad just because feeling sorry for the animals could be what makes the reader want to learn more.
             Some support arguments could be "wow, if I eat dairy I could lose weight" or " I need to eat more dairy, because tha
             ...