Someone please help me!

Look below.

Explanation:

Im pretty certain that line 20 would be correct because it looks like it's trying to say that Europe is "planting the old world in the new" in other words modifying the United states.

Rainsford final action in "The Most Dangerous Game" is justified. If Rainsford would have let General Zaroff live then more lives would have been in danger. In the article, Rainsford found out that General Zaroff hunted men as a game, and once he finds these men he kills them. If the General would not have been killed by Rainsford more lives would have been lost. It would be better if one life was lost then many more being lost. Secondly, General Zaroff did say that he would let Rainsford free if he won the game, but Rainsford knew that he could not be trusted. After Rainsford won the game, General Rainsford told him he can sleep in  a special bed as a reward, but Rainsford knew this was a trick. General Zaroff is a very cruel and evil person, and Rainsford knew that it was a trick because General Rainsford never used the bed. This is why Rainsford final action in "The Most Dangerous Game" is justified due to the general's action. Rainsford might have not killed the general in self defense, but he saved many more lives doing this action.

Explanation:

I did this on edg.

Hope this helps