Two rings to rule most of them is a narrative work of fantasy that leans heavily on its predecessors and delivers nothing new the concept of the core of the novel The two rings forged in sacracy are able to control power hungry people across the land has been done before what's more the underdog hero who ultimately destroys the ring has striking similarities to the heroes and several other popular novels even this setting descriptions are at times and near echo of greater novels that have defined the genora while the blue rhinoceros was mildly entertaining overall the book failed to earn a place on this reviewers must read list for the year

Question

Which statement best evaluates the strength of the evidence used to support the critical response
The evidence is strong because it points out several specific ways the book borrows too heavily from previous books
The evidence is strong cuz of writer presents a decisive judgment based on opinions formed while reading the book
The evidence is weak because the writer does not say which books the novel mimics
the evidence is weak because the writer mentioned something unique about the book even though the argument is that the book is too derivative

Answer 1

The statement that best evaluates the strength of the evidence used to support the critical response is:

The evidence is weak because the writer does not say which books the novel mimics.

While the review discusses how "Two Rings to Rule Most of Them" borrows from previous works, it lacks specific references to those works, making the argument less substantiated and therefore weaker.