Well for one, characterisation is how a writer chooses to reveal a characters personality in a story, through things like physical appearance (shiny hair, blue eyes, nice smile, ect.) and through virtues and faults (brave, attentive, smart - egotistical, bitter, evil.)
Figurative language is basically how you'd describe said chracterisations, through things like personification, hyperbole, metaphors, similes, ect.
So with that being said, figurative language can help characterise a monster by doing more than just saying it's a monster; figurative language can make it /feel/ like a monster to the reader. Figurative language can turn the monster '3-D' (for lack of better words), by saying it has long claws, stinky breath, vicious fangs, a horrifying growl, ect.
My favourite example of figurative language is actually in the childrens book "Where the Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak, because it uses simple figurative language. Maurice Sendak describes the wild things as so: "They roared their terrible roars and gnashed their terrible teeth and rolled their terrible eyes and showed their terrible claws.'
If im on the right track then a way to right it with dashes would be: Sacrificing her was a mistake-a mistake that could have been avoided. but i may not have understood the question??
There isn't really a right answer to this, it's more opinion based. What did you cover in class? If its relating to foodborne illness and sanitation then you could say, "One fact that I thought was most important was to avoid cross contamination with certain foods like poultry or raw eggs"
