Assignment Instructions: Frankenstein Critical Analysis Evaluation EssayNote: Please review the source guidelines below very carefully. If you do not choose from the provided sources below, this will cause a grading delay and you will need to resubmit the assignment.For this assignment, you will write your evaluation essay. You are required to submit only your >nal draft for this assignment (though we encourage all students to take advantage of the additional feedback a draft can provide). Use the grader’s feedback and the rubric to make revisions to your draft before submitting the >nal. Your second draft will be graded. Now that you have completed Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, you are in a good position to consider what critics have written about the novel. You will need a total of two critiques (also known as critical analysis essays) for this assignment.First, use the selection of links below to locate a critical analysis essay written about the 1818 version of Mary Shelley's novel. You may focus most of your attention on this >rst critique. If the author of your critique is not speci?ed, focus on the publication of the critique.Choose from among these sources:Romantic Circle's Critiques:Critique 1 Critique 2 Critique 3 Critique 4 Critique 5 Critique 6Professor Naomi Hetherington’s critiqueThe questions in the study guides should have helped you evaluate this criticism in your head. Now it’s time to write it down!Your evaluation may go more smoothly if you approach the guiding questions in this order:Evaluate the critic/author:Who wrote the criticism you read? What credentials does the author have? (If you are using a valid source, you should be able to >nd these easily)Find the thesis of the article:What is the thesis of the critical article you’ve chosen? What point does the author want to make about Frankenstein?Evaluate the thesis:Do you agree with this thesis? Why or why not? We’ve covered many ideas in the study guides. Can you >nd points within the guides that support your agreement or disagreement with the critical writer(s)? Look for new supporting information rather than revisiting the same ones the critics have chosen.Evaluate the support:Whether you agree or disagree with the thesis, does the critic provide suacient research from the text and outside references to make a strong case? What does the article have for support from the text or outside sources? In your opinion, what makes these references valid? Do you feel the author uses this support properly?Next, locate a second critique about the novel that includes ideas somewhat similar (genre classi>cation, for instance) to any of the discussions you have in your essay. The second critique can either support or refute any of the claims in your paper. The objective of this portion of the essay is to further support your opinion of the primary critic’s thesis or support. Therefore, for example, if you choose a secondary article that refutes any of your claims, you will need to counteract those ideas to bring the focus of your essay back in alignment with your essay’s thesis (your personal opinion of how the primary critic is either correct or incorrect in his or her thesis claim and/or how the >rst critic is either effective or ineffective in his or her support). Every discussion in this essay should ultimately support the claim you make in your thesis.For instance, if the >rst critic argues that Shelley’s writing is juvenile, and if you agree, does the second critic also support this thesis? How so? If the second critic does not support your assessment of the >rst critic's thesis, what evidence can you use from the text to argue that the second critic is incorrect? Consider another example: if the >rst critic believes the novel is autobiographical, and if you disagree, does the second critic help you argue your own view of the >rst critic's thesis? If so, how? Perhaps the second critic disagrees with your view and feels the novel is autobiographical-- if that's the case, be prepared to use evidence from the text to refute the second critic’s thesis and support your own argument. Using two critiques in this way will allow you to create a polished, comprehensive Evaluation Essay that allows you to connect your own ideas to those of seasoned critics.In addition to addressing each of the evaluative components above, develop your essay so it has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. You must include an evaluative thesis statement in both the introduction and the conclusion. Ensure that each of your claims is supported with valid evidence from the literary criticism you have chosen; the novel, Frankenstein; and/or the study guides.Using proper MLA style, insert parenthetical citations for all borrowed information in addition to a Works Cited page for Frankenstein and your chosen literary critiques; you are not required to cite the study guides if you use them.Helpful Hints: For a thesis statement, try answering a question like: How and how well does this piece of criticism state and support its argument regarding Frankenstein?You might use these as possible guidelines in crafting your thesis statement:(Critic, aka author of the critique) uses (add critic title) to (add an adjective to describe the effectiveness of the argument such as “adequately” or “inadequately”) argue that (add critic’s thesis) by (explain why and/or include your support).OR(Critic)’s (add critique title) (add an adjective to describe the effectiveness of the argument such as “adequately” or “inadequately”) argue that (add critic’s thesis) because (explain why and/or include your support).More speci>c thesis examples:John Smith uses "Frankenstein Critique Essay" to adequately argue that Victor's mother created the Mrst monster by coddling Victor as a boy.ORJohn Smith's "Frankenstein Critique Essay" does not effectively argue that Victor's mother created the Mrst monster because the novel Frankenstein too strongly supports inherent good or bad, which means nurturing roles cannot be held responsible. The guidelines for this assignment are:Length: This assignment should be a minimum of 3 typed pages or at least 750 words.Header: Include a header in the upper left-hand corner of your writing assignment with the following information:Your >rst and last nameCourse Title (Composition II)Assignment name (Evaluation Essay, Writing Assignment 4)Current DateFormat:Underline your thesis statement in the introductory paragraph.Reminder: You need at least two critiques in addition to the novel in Works Cited in order to receive the highest score. In other words, you need three sources total in cited in the essay and on the Works Cited page in order to earn the maximum points in the corresponding column on the grading rubric. Failure to meet the source minimum will result in a severe decrease in your grade.Rubric: Grading Rubric for the Critical AnalysisLast modi>ed: Monday, July 22, 2019, 1:07 PM MLA-style source documentation and Works CitedYour last name and page number in the upper- right corner of each pageDouble-spacing throughoutStandard font (TimesNewRoman, Calibri) Title, centered after heading1” margins on all sidesSave the >le using one of the following extensions: .docx, .doc, .rtf, or .txt Once you have >nished with your essay and are ready for it to be reviewed by a grader, submit your assignment using the Draft or Final upload links for this assignment.Please note that drafts are optional.Assignment Instructions: Frankenstein Critical Analysis Evaluation Essay

Arctic Offshore DrillingOffshore oil and gas reserves, primarily along coastlines in Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Texas, account for a large proportion of the oil and gas supply in the United States. In August 2015, President Obama authorized Royal Dutch Shell to expand drilling off Alaska’s northwest coast. His decision brought into sharp relief the different, oftentimes competing views on the expansion of offshore drilling.Many proponents of offshore drilling argue that tapping into the vast amount of oil and gas reserves in the Arctic will help shore up national security interests for the United States, bolster its economy and workforce, and offer Americans a reliable, safe supply of oil. According to Robert Bryce, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, there are “enormous amounts of recoverable energy resources in the Arctic. The Department of Energy estimates them at something on the order of 400 billion barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas and oil. That’s four times the crude oil reserves of Kuwait.” Framed this way, drilling in the Arctic presents a way for Americans to mitigate risks from dependence on foreign oil and build the local and national economies by creating jobs and supplying cheap oil.A competing point of view charges that offshore oil drilling poses immense risk to the environment while reinforcing a reliance on dirty, environmentally unfriendly sources of energy. Critics claim that industrial activity associated with offshore drilling in the Arctic could harm native animals, including polar bears, walruses, seals, and whales already jeopardized by climate warming and declining levels of sea ice. Environmentalists argue that oil companies have not demonstrated the capability to clean up an oil spill in water obstructed by ice. Furthermore, they contend, extracting oil only perpetuates a fossil-fuel economy and will contribute dangerously to rising global temperature thereby exacerbating climate change.“Granting Shell the permit to drill in the Arctic was the wrong decision, and this fight is far from over,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “The people will continue to call on President Obama to protect the Arctic and our environment.”Discussion Questions1. Do you find use of one framework over another more compelling than the other? Why? In what ways do your own beliefs or opinions affect your perspective on this issue?2. Do you think there are unintended or undesirable consequences of framing Arctic drilling as an “either-or” issue, i.e. as one that pits environmentalists against business leaders? Why or why not?5. What would be an ethically ideal way to resolve this issue and why?