Write a paragraph in which you argue whether or not Rainsford's final action in "The Most Dangerous Game" is justified.

I believe that Rainsford killing Zaroff was justifies because he did it for self-defense. Rainsford did not know if Zaroff would keep his promise of letting him go, so he killed him just to be safe. Some people may say that it was not justified and he could have just left since he won the game. However, if he did not kill Zaroff, many other men would be victim to his dangerous game. Zaroff had already killed many people and he would be dangerous if he was kept alive. Rainsford not only acted in self defense for himself but also for others. Therefore he was justified in killing Zaroff.

As with all interpretive questions, your answer is based upon your own reading of the story and how you analyze the plot and characters. Rainsford had escaped Zaroff, and won the game. There was no reason to return to the masion and kill Zaroff except to exact revenge. Consider that Rainsford himself is a hunter, used to being in power. Although he had never considered doing something as inhumane as Zaroff in hunting humans, his choice to kill Zaroff reveals his need to be in control. In this case, his killing of Zaroff isn't about justice, but about revenge.