What are the flaws or potential points of attack on the arguements made in Frankenstein?
If I understand the question correctly, it is asking about the arguments one can make regarding the criticism which can arise after reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The novel itself does not really speak directly to any arguments. Instead, one can argue different points which are illustrated throughout the text (because of the controversial questions the novel can raise).
Some of the topics which can bring about a serious argument are medical experimentation on human beings, nature verses nurture, justice verses injustice, and the identity of the real monster of the novel.
Given that Victor experiments upon human body parts, some may feel that this is immoral, while others may feel as though Victor is playing God. The question if the monster's personality is a result of nature or nurture is another argument some find interesting. Was the Creature "born bad," or was it the result of the environment upon him? The question of justice being served also serves as an interesting argument. Was justice served in the end? A final argument lies in the real monster of the text. Is Victor the real monster for abandoning his "son," or is the Creature the real monster given the numerous murders?