contestada

Read the excerpt from "The Most Dangerous Game."

"I wanted the ideal animal to hunt," explained the general. "So I said: 'What are the attributes of an ideal quarry?' And the answer was, of course, 'It must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason.'"

"But no animal can reason," objected Rainsford.

"My dear fellow," said the general, "there is one that can."

"But you can't mean—" gasped Rainsford.

"And why not?"

"I can't believe you are serious, General Zaroff. This is a grisly joke."

"Why should I not be serious? I am speaking of hunting."

"Hunting? General Zaroff, what you speak of is murder."

Rainsford’s response to Zaroff indicates that

Respuesta :

First, let’s analyze Rainsford reaction, at the beginning he thinks that the general is joking, he refers to the General’s idea as a “grisly joke”, later he completely disagrees to call that activity “haunting”, he refers to it as “murder”. With this we can infer that he strongly disagrees with Zaroff thought, Rainsford’s response to Zaroff indicates that he is complete against to the idea of haunting humans.

ogorwyne

The response that Rainsford gave to Zairoff is an indication that he found the words of the General surprising.

The summary of the excerpt

From the excerpt the general said he wanted to go hunting, but the description of the animal he wanted to hunt was likened to a human.

He said the animal must be cunning and be able to reason. These are some of the attributes that human beings have.

Read more on a dangerous game here:

https://brainly.com/question/391842