This is a feedback my instructor gave me about the false advertising paper. Here is the feedback I put on it: For Lifelock, you need to state the problem more directly. The first deception you analyze is off. It’s not that it’s “not straightforward” to trace hackers. They never said they would. They said “monitor”. That is what you need to analyze and figure out where the deception is. With SuperBeta, you need to quote the ad. The phrases you use are “less distraction” and “better bladder functioning”: Are these direct quotes or what you think the ad is saying? Break the ad down one step at a time, from the words in it, to your interpretation of each. For the shampoo ad, you need to pretend to be the government regulator on the set of the ad being filmed (as the government shows up to check if your restaurant meets code or not). What are you looking for? What would give them a Fail? You have fallen into another issue here: How the ad makes women feel bad, etc. That is another topic entirely. You are explaining what makes an ad filmed for TV deceptive or truthful (as an ad for a product). Recall the Volvo ad we did in class. ( The volvo add is the add that volvo did by putting 5 cars in the row and had a track driving on all 5, all other 4 cars were crashed under heavy duty track except volvo). For your own ad, you should first give the ad, in words. What is the ad? Then analyze it. You are trying to say they are implying you will lose weight. Well, you need to prove the ad implies this to a reasonable consumer.