The general made one of his deepest bows. “i see,” he said. “splendid! one of us is to furnish a repast for the hounds. the other will sleep in this very excellent bed. on guard, rainsford.” he had never slept in a better bed, rainsford decided. based on the passage, what can we infer was the outcome of the story? question 1 options: general zaroff let rainsford sleep in the master bedroom. rainsford killed zaroff and slept in the general's bed. general zaroff killed rainsford, and left rainsford to sleep "eternally" in the bed. none of these.

orrect second option: Rainsford killed Zaroff and slept in the general´s bed.  

In the short history “The Most Dangerous Game” (1924), by Richard Connell, Rainsford is part of a hunting game where he is hunted by General Zaroff. Rainsford who is also a hunter succeeds in escaping and survives to surprise the general in his bedroom. So they decide to have a fight in which the loser will be fed to the dogs and the winner will sleep in the general´s bed. As the last sentence of the history shows that Rainsford decided that he had never slept in a better bed, we conclude that he wins the fight and kills Zaroff.

The most probable answer is option 2: Rainsford killed Zaroff and slept in the general's bed. This is clear to me because of what is stated in the passage that he had never slept in a better bed, meaning he won the fight for it.

Option 1 is not probable because it wasn't a matter of letting the other person sleep in the bed, but to fight for the right to do so.

Option 3 does not represent the outcome of the story because it's Rainsford the one who wins the fight and gets to sleep on the bed.

Option 4 "None of these" isn't the right option because it doesn't include the story's denouement in itself.

because it's a cool name

explanation:

a. it reminds protestors of the reasons they have to protest.