Chpt 1 and 2 Questions

Chpt. 1-
1) If the reader cannot see the underlying assumptions, how does he/she fully understand the text?
2) How can a cartoonist tell if his/her cartoon has a persuasive meaning that the audience(assuming that the audience is a national one) can relate with and understand?
3) How can one determine whether or not a political cartoon has crossed the line? And if there isn't a boundary, should there be one?
Chpt. 2-
1) In Figure 2.4, there is visual evidence of the product working, but is this the actual proof? How do we know that?
2) Is exaggerated use of pathos appropriate in advertising? Why? Why not?
3) How can parody be used to differenciate ethos from what they really are?