The Most Dangerous Game Rhetorical Analysis

364 Words2 Pages

Most Dangerous Game Argumentation Paragraph The story, “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell is about Sanger Rainsford ends up on an island with General Zaroff, who hunts humans. Rainsford ends up playing General Zaroff’s game and becomes the huntee while Zaroff is the hunter. Zaroff loses the game and gets killed by Rainsford. Rainsford was justified in killing General Zaroff. During the time Rainsford is in Zaroff’s house they have a conversation about hunting. Zaroff tells Rainsford about him hunting humans. Rainsford says, “I can’t believe you are serious, General Zaroff. This is a grisly joke........... what you speak of is murder” (Connell 5). Rainsford is very astonished by this, if you couldn’t tell.The reader can infer that this isn’t the only time that Zaroff has killed a person because he made a game of it. Usually, when someone commits a murder, they are punished …show more content…

If I find him, the general smiled, he loses” (Connell 5). In this section of the story, Zaroff is explaining the rules of the game to Rainsford. When Zaroff says “If I find him…..he loses,” you can highly infer by this that when he says “loses” he means they die, so he’s practically saying that is Rainsford loses, he dies. Typically, when one knows they are going to die, they do what they can to save themselves, which is what Rainsford did. Since Zaroff is hunting humans, one of them is most likely to die. Murder can not go unpunished. Rainsford would most likely have died if he didn’t kill Zaroff. Some may say that one should never kill no matter what. Well, if Rainsford himself never killed Zaroff, he would have died. He was defending himself by killing Zaroff. It is highly understood that one should not kill but what would you do if someone was hunting you and trying to kill you? Would you let them or would you kill them to save

Open Document