Question
Use the reviews to answer the question.
Review #1
Two Rings to Rule Most of Them is a derivative work of fantasy that leans heavily on its predecessors and delivers nothing new. The concept at the core of the novel—that two rings forged in secrecy are able to control power-hungry people across the land—has been done before. What’s more, the underdog hero who ultimately destroys the rings has striking similarities to the heroes in several other popular novels. Even the setting descriptions are, at times, a mere echo of greater novels that have defined the genre. While the blue rhinoceros was mildly entertaining, overall the book failed to earn a place on this reviewer’s must-read list for the year.
Review #2
Two Rings to Rule Most of Them is a snooze of a read. It’s a book about two rings forged in secrecy that are able to control power-hungry people across the land. That sounds interesting, but the book did not live up to the promise of the premise. The main character ultimately destroys the rings, leading to a positive outcome for the people of the land. The character faced strange challenges along the way. The blue rhinoceros was a fan favorite, but this reviewer did not feel the love. I would strongly recommend skipping this book.
How does the effectiveness of the two reviews compare?
(1 point)
Responses
The second review is more effective because it gives readers a specific directive to avoid the book.
The second review is more effective because it gives readers a specific directive to avoid the book.
The first review is more effective because it provides stronger evidence to support its claims.
The first review is more effective because it provides stronger evidence to support its claims.
The second review is more effective because it provides more of the reviewer’s opinion.
The second review is more effective because it provides more of the reviewer’s opinion.
The first review is more effective because it gives readers a clearer idea of what the book is about.
Review #1
Two Rings to Rule Most of Them is a derivative work of fantasy that leans heavily on its predecessors and delivers nothing new. The concept at the core of the novel—that two rings forged in secrecy are able to control power-hungry people across the land—has been done before. What’s more, the underdog hero who ultimately destroys the rings has striking similarities to the heroes in several other popular novels. Even the setting descriptions are, at times, a mere echo of greater novels that have defined the genre. While the blue rhinoceros was mildly entertaining, overall the book failed to earn a place on this reviewer’s must-read list for the year.
Review #2
Two Rings to Rule Most of Them is a snooze of a read. It’s a book about two rings forged in secrecy that are able to control power-hungry people across the land. That sounds interesting, but the book did not live up to the promise of the premise. The main character ultimately destroys the rings, leading to a positive outcome for the people of the land. The character faced strange challenges along the way. The blue rhinoceros was a fan favorite, but this reviewer did not feel the love. I would strongly recommend skipping this book.
How does the effectiveness of the two reviews compare?
(1 point)
Responses
The second review is more effective because it gives readers a specific directive to avoid the book.
The second review is more effective because it gives readers a specific directive to avoid the book.
The first review is more effective because it provides stronger evidence to support its claims.
The first review is more effective because it provides stronger evidence to support its claims.
The second review is more effective because it provides more of the reviewer’s opinion.
The second review is more effective because it provides more of the reviewer’s opinion.
The first review is more effective because it gives readers a clearer idea of what the book is about.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The first review is more effective because it provides stronger evidence to support its claims.