1.1 The writing employs style, tone, and conventions appropriate to the demands of a particular genre and situation. 

              In essay 1.3, I was told to write a dialectic essay, essentially a debate in written form. The purpose of this debate is to discuss whether Frankenstein’s monster should have a bride or not. While basic in structure, the different segments of the paper all serve a specific purpose, to explore the issue. I began my Dialectic in standard form, with an introduction stating not only the idea that will be discussed, but the position that I will be taking through the course of the paper. Stating with my thesis in the introduction that "The creature...should be able to have a companion," I moved on to establish my claim in the second paragraph with my argument. (pg. 1) The importance of the dialectic structure becomes apparent with the second paragraph, though; as the counterargument is addressed. The counter argument is so important to the dialectic structure because it allows for a full, developed analysis and exploration of a different view of the same issue. In the second paragraph, I established that the creature should not be allowed to have a bride because he cannot share the same emotional needs that humans have. (pg. 2) It can be very beneficial to address a topic such as this from two differing points of view, because it can lead to a more developed understanding of both the topic at hand and the people involved in either side of the debate. In the essay this is not so apparent, because all of the ideas are coming from inside my head. Understanding of different people can be more apparent in the actual use of the dialectic, the formal debate. In class, we held a formal debate exploring the pros and cons of lowering the legal drinking age to eighteen. This debate, like its essay brother, has a very rigid structure that follows almost exactly the structure described thus far. The debate allowed us to see a practical application of this genre, it allows the thoughtful discussion of an idea. In the case of this debate, there was not an opinion that was "right," but perhaps a more correct exploration of the idea and use of the genre's style. For instance, in the debate, the goal was to provide the most convincing argument. Both sides attempted to do this through the use of logical reasoning, emotional response, or hard evidence. These tools and others help an argument seem more convincing. By applying the dialectic in a real life setting, I was able to understand what forms and tools of structuring made either of  my arguments more effective. The dialectic then ends with a chance for the original argument to respond to the claims made by the counterargument. this is as important as the initial statements of the argument because it gives the first argument time to reply in conversation to the counter. This aspect of conversation is the most important feature of the dialectic because without it, the paper would only be the separate discussion of an idea on the same page. Through conversation, understanding and deeper thought emerges.

 Genre is a very important factor to a piece of writing, or any kind of medium where an idea can be spread. Genre is essentially the way in which the idea is presented, not the medium, mind you, but like the dialectic it tends to take more form in structure and style. When I watch a horror movie, I may not know what kind of ideas may be discussed in the movie, but I know I can expect they will be explored through the use of dramatic lighting, plot pacing, and other cinematography devices. Genre is important to ideas because it allows us to be familiar with them before we even know what they are. This is important so that by being more familiar with a subject, people feel freer to discuss the topic in an open way, leading to a broad and deep discussion.

3.2 The stakes of the argument, why what is being argued matters, are articulated and persuasive.

The stakes of an argument are the "so what?" and "who cares?" of a paper. They are the importance of my writing. I say "The creature...should be able to have a companion," so what? (Page 1) "So what" is indeed the summation of stakes, it is the real world implications of the argument at hand. The "so what" for this essay and many like it can only take their applications in real life, however. Authors cannot come back from the dead to be inspired by my writings and change their novels. But implications within the text are important because they can be used to analyze and predict how characters will act from then on. In my paper, I look at how the creature's debate with the doctor might have implications for the future." If Frankenstein is able to perceive his creation more as a human,... he is more likely to connect with the monster, and wish to grant its’ request." (pg. 3) For the creature, his happiness is at stake, if he can't have companionship with another like him, he knows he will be doomed to a life of lonely exile. For the Doctor, the safety of everything he know is at stake because he has seen the creature's terrible capacity for evil and destruction. By looking at how the creature attempts to humanize himself, we can understand how the doctor is able to agree to his creation's demands. This is an important stake because it determines the plot for the rest of the novel. If the stakes had been different, say, if the monster was being hunted and he came to the doctor for help, then the stakes of this argument likely would have been the life of the creature, and whether it was right or not to kill him at that time. 

Another aspect key to stakes are how convincing they are. Much like the dialectic, the intention of stakes is to make the importance of, say, the creature having a bride not only important but convincing. When the creature is in his debate with the doctor, he employs several persuasive devices including elevating diction, logos and pathos.These are mean to not only to make his argument more convincing, but to make the consequences of their decision more convincing. If I were to argue to you that "I am good at making stakes about this novel," you are given no indication the relevance of whether I am good at analyzing stakes or not. If I say: "If I am good at stakes, I am able to analyze the relative importance of the literary choices made in this novel," this lets you know why it is important I am good at stakes. The creature lets us know the importance of his having a bride because he will not only be lonely, but he will also lash out against humans, giving the doctor and incentive to act. Thus is the stakes of stakes, he importance of analyzing stakes. It is important to analyze stakes because it is important to look at the implications of our intellectual arguments. Without stakes, we are just putting a bunch of ideas and analysis on paper. Stakes give our ideas real world form and implications.

3.4 – The argument is persuasive, taking into consideration counterclaims and multiple points of view as it generates its own perspective and position. 

By nature, the dialectic essay is meant to incorporate these elements. the argument is supposed to be convincing, and due to the structure, there must be a counter argument. Persuasiveness, however, is entirely left to the skill of the writer. This can make a persuasive argument very tricky because there are so many different ways that I could try to convince the audience of something. I could use literary devices to enhance my authority, I could use logical reasoning or an appeal to emotions, I could even just spout my own thoughts. What makes an effective argument is actually very subjective, it depends heavily on the type of audience i am trying to convince of an issue. If I was trying to convince voters to pass an initiative to ban assault weapons, I would try an appeal consisting of imagery of graphic violence, and personal stories to connect to the people better. If I was trying to convince an academic committee, or you, Meagan, I would take a more analytical and logical approach so that my argument is totally reason based, ending it authority in the academic. In general, when making any sort of claim, it can almost always help out to address the claims that oppose your own. In this essay, I addresses these opposing ideas in the 3rd paragraph where I bring up the point that the creature from Frankenstein cannot need a bride because it is not human and therefore cannot feel the same emotional needs that humans do. (pg. 1, 2) The real thing that strengthens my argument is not just the inclusion of a counter argument, but the conversation between my argument and counterargument. By using the two together I can lend strength to my claim for the creature to have a bride because I have considered the opinions of others and adjusted my argument to counter those. (pg. 3) Additionally, viewing a counterargument can be beneficial because it can help to narrow or expand your argument. Counterarguments are important because they allow the intelligent discussion of two different ideas, sometimes sorting things into a "good" and "bad," sometimes making things more confusing, but the point is that it makes us think about what we are saying.

4.2 - The writing responds to substantive issues raised by the instructor and peers.

 Review is an important part of the writing process, just as adding counterarguments into the mix with you argument, having critical analysis of my papers is an excellent way to improve them. By paying attention to what others, an especially my peers, have to say, I am able to see errors I might have made without notice, or gain insight on how other people view the idea I am looking at. For this paper, I had it peer reviewed by 3 of my classmates on a peer review day. This was helpful because my classmates pointed out a range of potential problems from grammatical problems to whole argument problems. For instance, in my final paragraph, I initially addressed stakes, but they were all over the place an were loosely applicable to both the topic and the novel. (pg. 3) The comments from my peers, such as "Stakes are unclear. Talk about possible implication of creating [versus] not creating [the] monster." (Sorry, no citation available, the editor did not write their name) Larger, idea-based mistakes such as these are easier for others to see because people who are unfamiliar with my ideas will need the clearest development and progression of those ideas so that they can understand. Additionally, addressing instructor comments is important because it allows me to draw on the experience and knowledge accumulated by my seniors. One point that I was unsure about was at the end of my 3rd paragraph, I had originally brought up a new idea, thinking that it tied into what I had been talking about. It really didn't, as you pointed out by saying "This seems like it is introducing a new argument entirely, [it] is related to, but not the same argument as the one you have been making thus far." (LM6)