I know that the first question is B but I am not sure what the second one is because I have not read the passage.
The way I tackle them is by listening to audios
It hasn't and probably it never will.
It is also philosophically dangerous to equate civilization to good and savagery to evil. After all, we as so called civilized men would be inherently biased in assuming that we represent the positive side of this equation while nature's savages, or that which is the antitheses of what's civilized, represents or equates evil.
Binary comparisons often lack the subtlety to portray the complexity of life and its myriad shades of gray.
At best we could say that evidence suggests civilization seems a more desirable option than savagery.
Answer: Rainsford ultimately has to decide if he will kill or be killed.
There are a lot of dark actions in this story, and the above quick synopsis highlights two of them: General Zaroff decides to hunt humans for sport, and Rainsford has to decide whether to kill Zaroff or get killed. The intentions and eotions, as you can imagine, are diverse: fear of death, anger at being hunted, the need to survive... there are more, but this will give you a start.
Explanation:
Because it is asking what Rainsford had to decide that was really dark
