Argumentative Essay On The Most Dangerous Game

It had been a week since Rainsford managed to kill the nefarious General Zaroff. The challenging part was almost over or so it seemed. There was not a clear way for Rainsford to escape. As days passed, Rainsford tried to escape. He tried making a boat from driftwood that he found, he tried swimming, he even tried sending a signal by using a flashlight. Rainsford had become so desperate that he even tried some ridiculous plans like trying to pole vault across the ocean. As a result, Rainsford ended up having huge gashes in his left leg ,which got infected, and he had to amputate it. As days turned into weeks, and weeks into months, Rainsford had lost hope and became bitter.

“The Most Dangerous Game”, by Richard Cornell was a story which Mr.Cornell used 8 aspects of fiction to show his point of view that one who has intellect can overcome one who has intelligence or instinct. The character’s used in the story gave the author a way to make his point of view come clear to his audience. The story uses sequence of events. The plot is how the story goes about. The setting is the surroundings of the story, or where it takes place. The suspense is the temporary holding of the information to keep the reading interested, and to keep the reader guessing and wanting to know what will happen so they will continue reading your story. Foreshadowing is the readers way of telling the ‘future’, in other words the writer is

Some stories do not have many different conflicts in the story. For example, in “Little Red Riding Hood” there is only one conflict which is Man vs Wolf or Man vs Man, but in some stories like “The Most Dangerous Game” there are all three conflicts throughout the book. Having more conflicts gives the story a bigger theme of suspense. In “Little Red Riding Hood”, the only conflict is getting to her grandma’s house where in “The Most Dangerous Game” there are many different conflicts that give the story more suspense and make it more interesting. Furthermore, there are many examples of conflicts in the short story.

Imagine a time where you had an argument with your parents. What would was the outcome of the argument? Did you get what you wanted? Many may wonder: why would you argue with when you now you most likely will not get your way. Maybe we argue because we are mad and want to vent Maybe we argue because we are convinced we are right even if we realize later that we weren't. We ask ourselves why why do we fight battles we now we are destined to lose? The argument of “The Most Dangerous Game” General Zaroff, hunts trapped sailors on his island. He does this because he is bored of hunting animals he knows he will win. He thinks he will also defeat Rainsford, other great hunter. Zaroff is a murderer and is uncivilized because he killed people

Richard Connell’s The Most Dangerous explains multiple theories, such as nature versus nurture, and survival of the fittest. This short story also seems to have an underlying theme of Social Darwinism (Of Two Classes). Throughout the entirety of the short story, Connell shows a character change of a main character, Rainsford, who is at a constant battle with General Zaroff, the antagonist. This character change shows the importance of the mindset of characters, and how it can be applied to everyday life.

In the story The Most Dangerous Game one conflict is man vs nature. Rainsford is fighting nature because he is on a ship and he came across an island. Rainsford falls overboard and has to swim for safety. “All he knew was that he was safe from his enemy, the sea and the other was weariness on him”. In order to survive rainsford hast to swim to the island and find shelter. In the conflict man vs nature this shows Rainsford bravery.

In one article, What Is A Life Worth? by Amanda Ripley, it speaks about the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and how the attacks led to the development of the human life calculator. It calculates how much your life is worth, based on how much you make and would have continued to make if they had lived. “Every award will be based on a cold calculus, much the way courts handle wrongful-death claims” (Ripley 5). The calculator does not take into account the worth of a person's life, regardless of how much they make. The family members,friends, and lovers of those lost deserve to know that their loved one matters and was more than just a set number. These events changed the course of their lives forever. Many fought the government, saying that they felt their loved one was worth more than what was said and that that should be taken into account.

Rainsford sighed. He should’ve seen this argument coming from a mile away. Yet his idiotic brain was filled with joy for staying alive for so long. He thought he could just complete the game and leave this place for good, but fate has other plans.

Hunting big game animals for sport was a popular pastime with the wealthy classes following World War I. The morality of killing for sport was not questioned in reality, but in this short story the author does question it by taking it a step further and having the protagonist, Sangor Rainsford, hunted by the antagonist, General Zaroff.In a short story full of irony, one of the greatest ironies of Richard Connell’s “The Most Dangerous Game” is that General Zaroff repeatedly tells Rainsford that he maintains a sense of civilization on his island.

Isolation is very hard to overcome and defeat. "The Most Dangerous Game" starts off with the main character, Rainsford, falling off a boat. He swims to a random island and luckily gets welcomed in by the owner of the house. The owner invites him for dinner and as they eat they talk about hunting animals across the world. The owner of the house, Zaroff, to Rainsford surprise, hunts human instead of animals because he is too good at hunting animals. He asked Rainsford to hunt humans with him but Rainsford says no. Now Zaroff wants to hunt Rainsford so he does. Will Kane is the main character in High Noon. He is the marshal of the town and he carries the lode of responsibility on his back. He sentenced an enemy to jail, but now that enemy has come back will his crew to kill Will Kane. In both High Noon and "The Most Dangerous Game" there are similarities and differences in the theme, main characters, and setting.

Determining the amount of damages that should be given to the different types of people is the central issue of the article. “I had always accepted that no two lives were worth the same in financial terms. But now I found the law in conflict with my growing belief in the equality of all life” (Ripley 3). This means that the best solution from a moral standpoint should be that all victims receive the same recompense. Feinberg’s job, however, was to administer the congressional directive to ensure victims’ families “maintain something resembling their current standard of living.” (Feinberg 11). His work attempted to uncover the true value of life by diverting attention away from a lump sum of money for each victim, and instead focusing on the victims’ lives, ensuring that each family gets what they deserve. Using complex calculations of compensating for potential unearned wages and then deducting other financial assets meant that some families actually qualified for no money at all. Did that meant that their loved one’s life was worthless? The government’s virtuous intentions, while seen by many as flawed, were not always derided. Victim David Gordenstein, who lost his wife on 9/11 reflects, “I am proud of what my country tried to do. I think the intention is noble” (Ripley

I will be comparing the video verion of The Most Dangerous Game to the story.

the quicksand. Another example from the story is “ The ground grew softer under his

It is possible to put a value or price on almost anything, from a friendship to a box of cereal; but what about life? Some people may attempt to value life by recognizing the good deeds done in a lifetime while others determine life’s value by highlighting the wrongs. Of course it is possible for individuals to value life based on their own moral or logistical standpoints, but this does not account for the other billions of people that inhabit this planet. Although it may never cross the average person’s mind, everyone values life differently despite similarities or differences in character, morals, or religion, making it impossible to universally value life morally, but possible to place a monetary value on life through a series of

Many scholars agree that life is inestimable, but people in their action place a dollar value on human life when they make a decision to choose between good and bad. Some prefer to spend more money to buy a house in a safe environment instead of buying a cheap one in an unsafe place. Others pay more to get an insurance that covers more risks than a cheaper insurance that has a limited coverage. When someone buys an inexpensive car but less safe, he or she makes a trade between money and the risk of dying. Our behavior puts a dollar value on life even we are not aware of the fact. For me, valuable life means to help a person to take more responsibilities about his or her health. Since we live in a world with limited resource, decisions should