How does Rainsford's opinion on animals change throughout the story?
At first, Rainsford believes only humans can feel, but by the end, he agrees with
Whitney that animals can also feel "fear of pain" (Paragraph 13).
At first, Rainsford thinks that there is only one rational animal, humans, but then
he discovers the new animal that Zaroff has "invented" (Paragraph 100).
At first, Rainsford believes humans are smarter than animals, but then he sees
that some humans are actually "a very inferior lot" (Paragraph 131).
At first, Rainsford sees animals only as prizes for human hunters, but later
Rainsford sympathizes with the animal "at bay' when he too becomes the
hunted (Paragraph 204).

yes this is an analog in my view

"character is what you are in the dark." dwight lyman moody, in this very witty quotation of his, states we act and think differently when we are "in the dark", that is, when the spotlight is not on us and everyone can see us and consequently judge us. when reading, we tend to be sympathetic to some characters and their dilemmas. by being so, we are saying to ourselves that we agree with those characters' acts and choices, even if they are morally questionable if we have common sense in mind. dwight lyman moody's quotation applies very well to "crime and punishment", by   19th century russian writer fiodor dostoyevsky. raskolnikov, the main character, a former law student who spends his days reflecting upon life and its misery, draws a fatal conclusion: mankind is divided in two main categories: ordinary and extraordinary people. the first are the ones who lead a run-of-the-mill existence and are full of imperfections; the latter are the ones who are spiritually superior, the ones who always know better, and have the right to judge the ordinary ones, as well as eliminate them if for common good. raskolnikov considers himself as belonging to the extraordinary category and decides to kill an old lady who is a money lender and in whose house he rents a small room. raskolnikov compares himself to napoleon, who had the undeniable right to execute tons of people during the war in order to save his nation. of course what the main character decides to do is a horrendous crime, but as readers we feel it is the right thing for him to do, since the victim is a mean old woman who only thinks about money and keeps humiliating her younger sister. what one experiences is a mixture of sympathy and empathy for the character, even though he decides to commit homicide, which is not at all accepted or tolerated by civilized citizens. however, since readers are "in the dark", they allow themselves to feel in ways they would probably never dare to confess to anyone, no matter how nasty or vicious a character can be. after all, they are just reading and doing no harm. in other words, readers are in the dark and can be who they are without being judged.

all of these investments exhibit common risk factors. these investments show signs of problems with upper management. quarterly earnings are not up to snuff. emerging markets, while sometimes lucrative, are inherently risky. there could possibly be a discrepancy in the debt to cash flow ratio. the potential returns of each investment range wildly. buy and hold for dear life is not a wise investing philosophy, but an investor's exposure to risk is at their own discretion. with the very thin evidence that is available to me concerning fraudulent behavior, i would recommend consulting with another financial planner, possibly keep a lawyer on retainer, and keep a book with finra and sec guidelines handy.