The advertisement about feeding meat being child abuse stuck out to me the most. It was partially effective simply because it can be very misleading to some people. Now the reason I said that it was partially effective is because the speaker did a good job of emphasizing his point. By choosing a chubby child over a skinnier child, it serves as pathos, invoking a sense of fear into the audience that consumption of meat is consequential. That also applies to ethos, in terms of being a testimonial, a chubbier child would probably be credible to believe rather than a skinnier child in this scenario of fighting obesity. The methods of the speaker convincing the audience to "fight fat" was fairly effective but also misleading. Saying "feeding meat is child abuse" can engrave this idea that simply eating meat will lead to unwanted weight. With personal experience as someone who has started becoming more aware of my health, I can say that not all meats are equal. There are healthy meat alternatives to hamburgers. Additionally, a lot of factors play into overall weight such as activity level. Therefore I believe that the use of logos (the portrayal of the hamburger and the child) was not as efficient. I would also like to note the part where it says "child abuse". Reports of child abuse worldwide has always involved a situation where a caregiver is imposing injury, death, or harm to the child intentionally. Simply feeding their child meat should not be child abuse. Food is a necessity and moderate amounts, along with right choices, are not going to do any harm. Therefore, it's safe to assume that feeding meat to a child is not child abuse, unless actual acts of violence are given off. Overall, the advertisement was strong on some parts but lacking in others.