Other option is too long. Also seems to contradict itself. It says you and then talks Vin Tanner.

It feels more personal when a specific person is mentioned.

I have watched scenarios with Ney York as the base before. I think it would be neat to see a different place so leaving out the name was more eye catching to me.

the description of A is more appealing. It's more concise and to the point

I like the succinct appeal. It is the right length. It gives the best summary.

I like that option A jumps right into the story there. It is quick to show an impact and the baseline of book. The description is concise and grabs the reader's attention more quickly than in option B. I would use option A as the text for this book description.

I chose A because I could easily follow it. B gets a little wordy and is harder to follow.

I think the more concise description flows better and is more captivating.

Option a was more inviting and flowing. The term "City States" in option B sounds unnatural and unappealing.

Choice A seemed a lot more clear about who the subject of the story is. In Choice A it was clear that "they" refers to Vin Tanner and the community. In Option B, "they" sounds like just Vin Tanner. It sounds like the plural singular and feels awkward. It made me wonder if the author is referring to Vin Tanner as "they" because the character is non-binary.

I feel the first sentence in the other one is irrelevant and doesnt add much to the description.

I like that A is more concise, and that it starts off introducing the protagonist right away. A has all the necessary information without being too excessively wordy.

I like a little more description

Sounds better starting out with the pandemic

It's more descriptive and makes me want to read more.

It gives more information and lets on as to what you can expect when you read the book. The other description didnt sell the idea enough to keep my interest.

Choice B goes into a bit more detail than the other option, making it seem a bit more interesting.

I like Option B because it seems to be more descriptive. I like the way the story progresses which is something I don't really get from Option A. Option A isn't as creative which is why I like Option B more than Option A.

The introduction to the description drew me into the story line better than the first one. For some reason it seemed a little more personal, like I really wanted to see what happened.

This just seems really interesting and would be something that I would like to read.

I like how it starts with the conflict from the start. "A pandemic..." just makes you interested from the start. Whereas, "Vin Tanner and..." makes you think, who? who cares...

B is detailed and intriguing.

I choose B because of it is speaking in the third person. The first was to all over the place.

While this book description is a bit longer for my liking, I actually feel like I get a better understanding of what the book is about much better than Option A. If I had to choose between these books, I would go with Option B.

This one is a bit more traditional sounding, and I also really like how it ends with "safe haven" which is presumably the book title, or it should be!

B sounds more compelling and exciting...adding NYC a place many are familiar with i think makes it more realistic and intriguing

Both options are not written well and have glaring grammatical errors, but Option B has the most "meat on the bones" to draw in a potential reader.

I like this one more because it just sounds cool.

Giving a well-rounded explanation of a books plot is phenomenal in my own opinion. It already invokes a sort of atmosphere and feel to what I'd either like to read about or not. Furthermore, it does show how capable the author is and their writing style even in giving just the premise.

This just tells more than the other description. It's also more exciting.

B is more appealing than A. B is very easily understood by the readers. It describes the story very clearly and efficiently.

Option B sounds much more dramatic than option A. The way it's written makes me feel more anxious and makes the book sound thrilling. I like the better imagery of the crumbling interstates. The very first line also seems to set the stage for a thrilling novel more.

Don't start off with a character name. That means nothing to anyone.

I chose option B as more appealing description for a book.

option a is just hard to read. the sentences don't flow from one to the next. the entire paragraph is very choppy. And at least B starts with the reason for the people having to flee - it provides a little background for what's coming next.

The intro captivates you more than option B.

A draws me into the story immediately. It tells the problem and then describes more. I would buy it forst.

The reference to 'City States' in the first sentence indicates we are dealing with a very different society, so I'm hooked all ready (Option A could take place anywhere). I also like the reference to 'crumbling interstates', it gives a detail, an image, that makes me able to visualize the scene.

B is better because it has more details and makes me more interested.

B has a more detailed description. I like B best.

stands out a lot more.it is more interesting as well

B sounds much more intense to me and sounds like a harrowing situation I would want to read about.

I chose B because the description was more detailed. I liked the fact that I could relate to where in the world that the pandemic was occurring.

It just sounds more coherent and complete

Option B is a much more intriguing description and catches your attention more right off the bat. You get a fuller mental image of the book and it excites the reader more. Option B has more info that sets it apart from similar stories and would reach a wider audience. Option B would appeal to more people and would make them more likely to pick the book up and see what it has to offer.

I prefer this option because it is slightly more detail oriented and more interesting than the alternate option.