What interference ("inference"?) can be created by the end of the story "The Most Dangerous Game"?
(When you say "interference," I assume that you actually mean "inference.")
Author Richard Connell leaves several questions unanswered at the end of his short story "The Most Dangerous Game." Why does Rainsford decide to continue the hunt? Has he, like Zaroff, also become enamored with the idea of hunting a human being? Or does he kill Zaroff out of a sense of revenge? We can assume that revenge plays a major part in Rainsford's decision to turn the tables on Zaroff and hunt him down, just as Zaroff had done with Rainsford. But when he did, it became a case of murder, since Zaroff had already conceded, naming Rainsford the winner of the game. Zaroff was a killer, but he was also an honorable man, and there is every indication that he would have treated Rainsford hospitably after discovering him in his bedroom. It also appears that Rainsford's satisfaction with Zaroff's comfortable bed comes from something more than just a need for rest. Perhaps Rainsford's satisfaction comes from having made his first kill of the most dangerous game of them all.