Zaroff's justification for hunting people is one of the most memorable pieces of reasoning in any short story taught in schools. He argues that the strong have a right to use the weak, and he does so calmly, over dinner. That makes it a natural prompt for argumentative writing, where students respond to his logic directly.

The assignment works because the position is easy to reject but harder to dismantle. Students can say Zaroff is wrong, but the stronger essays explain exactly where his reasoning fails. That is what separates opinion from argument.

Grading these essays raises a fairness question. Some students will write with real conviction, and a few may try to defend Zaroff's view. Your rubric needs to reward the quality of reasoning, not the position, so the assessment stays fair.

Common Core writing standard W.9-10.1 emphasizes claims, reasons, and evidence, along with acknowledging opposing views. Those elements are exactly what this prompt exercises, which makes it easy to connect to standards.

The Elements of a Strong Argument

A strong essay makes a clear claim, supports it with evidence from the story, and addresses the counterargument. In this case, the counterargument is Zaroff's own reasoning. Students who quote his logic and then respond to it show a level of engagement that goes beyond summary.

• A claim that takes a clear position on whether Zaroff's reasoning holds up
• Evidence drawn from Zaroff's own words and actions in the story
• Acknowledgment of the strongest version of his argument
• A rebuttal that engages the logic rather than just expressing disgust
• A conclusion that considers what the story suggests about such reasoning

Feedback on Tone and Reasoning

Emotional language is a frequent issue. Students may call Zaroff a monster and leave it there. Encourage them to replace labels with reasoning by asking what specific flaw in his logic they want the reader to see.

Another pattern is a rebuttal that simply restates the claim. Ask students to name a specific assumption in Zaroff's thinking, such as the idea that some lives matter less, and argue against it directly.

Grading Positions You Disagree With

If a student writes a well-reasoned essay taking an unpopular position, score it on the strength of the argument. That principle protects intellectual risk-taking and models what fair evaluation looks like.

A rubric focused on reasoning and evidence also helps AI tools remain neutral. GraideMind scores against the criteria you set, so the same standards apply to an essay regardless of its stance.

Extending the Assignment

A follow-up activity can deepen the learning. Have students exchange essays and write a short response from the opposite perspective, then revise their own argument in light of what they read.

This kind of exchange makes the counterargument feel real, and it usually improves the second draft more than any comment from the teacher.