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.
Which statement best evaluates the strength of the evidence used to support the critical response?
(1 point)
Responses
The evidence is weak because the writer does not say which books the novel mimics.
The evidence is weak because the writer does not say which books the novel mimics.
The evidence is strong because the writer presents a decisive judgment based on opinions formed while reading the book.
The evidence is strong because the writer presents a decisive judgment based on opinions formed while reading the book.
The evidence is strong because it points out several specific ways the book borrows too heavily from previous books.
The evidence is strong because it points out several specific ways the book borrows too heavily from previous books.
The evidence is weak because the writer mentions something unique about the book even though the argument is that the book is too derivative.
1 answer
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.
This choice highlights that the review lacks specificity in identifying the sources of its criticisms, which weakens the argument.
