Question

Is there a difference between hunting humans and animals? Why or why not? Include evidence from the text to support your answer. Do Zaroff and Rainsford have different perspectives? (The book is called "The Most Dangerous Game")

a) Yes, there is a difference, and Zaroff and Rainsford have different perspectives.
b) No, there is no difference, and Zaroff and Rainsford have similar perspectives.
c) Yes, there is a difference, but Zaroff and Rainsford have similar perspectives.
d) No, there is no difference, and Zaroff and Rainsford have different perspectives.

Answer 1

Yes, there is a difference between hunting humans and animals, and Zaroff and Rainsford have different perspectives.

Step-by-step explanation:

Yes, there is a difference between hunting humans and animals, and Zaroff and Rainsford have different perspectives.

The evidence from the text supports this conclusion. In "The Most Dangerous Game," General Zaroff hunts humans for sport, while Rainsford is initially hunted by Zaroff but then turns the tables and becomes the hunter himself. This shows that Zaroff sees humans as the ultimate prey and enjoys the challenge of hunting them, while Rainsford sees animals as fair game but believes that hunting humans is immoral.

Ultimately, the characters' perspectives on hunting humans and animals highlight their contrasting values and moral frameworks.