Frakenstien research paper

Hello ! Hope all is well. This project I have is basically going to be a re-write of a paper I already submitted before. This project is for the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Its a research paper estianally trying to prove that the book was written for the purpose of questioning scientific advancement. What I need the tutor to do is to rewrite what I have , but add a counterargument too it with an additional source that I will include. I will provide all the sources needed, but you are more than welcome to use another source if you see it fits in the paper.
source 1 : https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/04/franken-science/523560/

source 2 : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022167801414004

source 3 : https://scholarship.rollins.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=mls

Pasted below will be what my professor advised us to write about :

So, an “argument” is something you’re trying to prove. It could be something like in one of our presentations, that “Frankenstein is misunderstood because of Hollywood,” and then you could follow with either an opposing argument or a context. If you follow with a context, you explain a few key movies that do this, and of course use sources to show this. An example of an argument with an opposing argument could be, “This novel is about the danger of science,” and the opposing argument is, “this novel is about the importance of family responsibilities.” You would need a source to show this. I’ll write up a quick example:

The novel Frankenstein is primarily a tale about the dangers of science. In the beginning of the narrative a young scientist believes all the world will praise him for discovering how to bring the dead back to life. This is clearly dangerous as the creature Victor Frankenstein creates becomes a murderer, dangerous to society and even to himself. His miserable existence shows that science without ethics is dangerous. Others have said that this novel is only about science on the surface. Phillip Ball, writing for the Atlantic, claims that the real issue is how the scientist deals with his creations, whether he takes responsibility, not whether the science itself is evil or not. In fact, Karl Popper has said that science is neither good nor evil, as it is a pure investigation into the natural world.

In this paper I will first discuss Phillip Ball’s point of view (dear class always show the opposing side or context first), and then I will prove how science in on trial in every section of the book.

If you have anymore questions feel free to text me , I will be uploading my previous essay to reference as a pdf.