Question

Frankenstein’s characters prove that no one is completely good or evil. This story is about a scientist who makes a creature that kills his family. In the story, Victor Frankenstein’s work to bring a creature to life comes with a great cost. For instance, he sacrifices all of his other goals. But he ends up rejecting his creature, which makes the monster evil. So, Frankenstein is a character who shows good and bad traits.

An analysis of the creature in Frankenstein proves that nurture is more important than nature. Withholding kindness can create a monster. For example, Victor Frankenstein abandons the creature right after creating him. The creature is repeatedly rejected throughout his life. He was not born evil. Instead, he became evil as a result of his experiences.

Which argument is more effective?

Argument 1 is more effective because it has examples.
Argument 2 is more effective because it uses explanation.
Argument 1 is more effective because the elaborative techniques support the claim.
Argument 2 is more effective because the elaborative techniques support the claim.

Answer 1

Argument 1 is more effective because it provides examples to support the claim.

Step-by-step explanation:

The argument that is more effective is Argument 1, which states that Frankenstein's characters prove that no one is completely good or evil and provides examples to support this claim. The examples given include Victor Frankenstein sacrificing his goals to bring the creature to life, but then rejecting the creature, which ultimately leads to the monster's evil actions. These examples demonstrate the complexity of the characters and how they exhibit both good and bad traits.

Answer 2

Argument 2 is more effective because the elaborative techniques support the claim.

Step-by-step explanation: