You still don't provide evidence for your sensationalism description. I didn't say the book was based on sensationalism, you did.
You are continuing now what you did in your first response to my post. YOU began talking about sensationalism, when I asked you for examles, you then began talking about sales techniques without giving examples of what you mean by either one. And in the process you think you provided empirical evidence. (lol)
Under what conditions is sensationalism the same (or different) from sales technique?
You are the one using generalities like sensationalism, not me.
As for the adjectives you typed out, I know they are from the definition I posted. But they are not tied to anything empirical by you. Why are they tied to the infomercial or the book. Those adjectives describe how you feel about the informercial or the book. Those feelings while valid for you are NOT objective observable proof.
It would be a good idea for you to look up "proof" in your thesaurus and then learn how to apply it correctly.
What we are discussing is what you accept as empirical evidence for someone else, a third party (is not empirical evidence).
So far, you haven't provided any empirical evidence. Empirical proof (of your basis for your sensationalism accusation/allegation) and description are not exactly the same thing are they? Try again.
definition for those who find it useful:
description...act of describing
..............a representation in words of the qualities of a person or thing