this is very gripping

It reads more like an epic novel to me.

This one sounds more exciting. It is written to get the reader's attention.

I liked this description because it really built up the excitement and anticipation. It also gave the basic synopsis of the plot without revealing any actual details. I hate when the back blurbs give away too much about the story so I appreciate that this one was both intriguing while staying general.

Option A was more interesting and portrayed what the book is about very well. I was drawn to the synopsis while reading it.

A puts you right in the story, immediately. B is more of a retelling and not as engaging. A also gives you more of an idea of who the main character is, why he is interesting and why the conflict is happening. I also think the writing is better in A, and it sounds like something you would read on the back of a book.

Coming into this I thought i was going to like "B" more because it's more succinct, however "A" reads like a trailer and makes the story sound even more compelling. I guess such tactics are quite effective. A for sure .

Option A sounds more dramatic and more detailed than option B. Option A would grab a sci-fi reader's attention and interest. The last paragraph of option has a nice dramatization with "final blackout" being in capital letters and the beginning sounds very poetic too. I like how Lieutenant is better described in option A.

I like Option A because the synopsis is really engaging and it really catches my attention with the way it was structured. Option B seems to be similar to a textbook and it sounds really boring. As a result, Option B doesn't really catch my attention compared to Option A. Therefore, Option A is the better option in my opinion.

I chose A. I usually don't like longer synopsis, but I found A as more engaging. The intro paragraph sets up the post-apocalyptic setting that intrigues the reader to want to read more. While B does an okay job of telling what the story will be about, it seemed to have a more dry, structured story telling that wasn't as engaging.

I've always been a big fan of post apocalyptic fiction stories in all forms so I would just be a sucker for this book.

I think A sets up the story a bit better. I think that it tells enough of the plot to generate interest.

A has better grammar. In general, it is just more interesting.

This one is more interesting to me because of the description in the beginning, it's more dramatic and it doesn't say it takes place in Europe.

Sounds a bit more descriptive.

it is more specific, well explained and entertaining than the other.

I prefer option "A" as a better synopsis. The beginning intro grabs my attention and makes me want to read more. It is descriptive and exciting, giving me a vivid image of what is going on. The words that is used is more appealing, and ideal for a intro or brief summary of a book. The ending, encourages me to want more from what I am reading.

A because it draws me into the story immediately and makes me feel the characters before I even know them. I have a personal relationship with them from this example and now want to meet them.

Provides a more description of the story. Also leaves on a cliff hanger.

The text flows in an attention getting, absorbing manner. Written at my level.

While A is longer which I usually don't like, it does draw my attention into the book more.

Option A uses more vivid descriptive language and better grammar than Option B. For instance, Option B mentions crop-devouring insects, which are of no interest, breaks the 4th wall by mentioning that the Lieutenant is in a novel, and there is a comma in the first paragraph that is not connected with a word (i.e. space where there should not be) while the second paragraph mentions "the survival of...their lives", which is awkward and redundant. Therefore, Option A is superior.

More dramatic and gives a better idea of the book.

I really like A. I think by using in a land, it can make it anywhere. That is more appealing to the person, that would be reading the book.

I think this makes the journey and the story seem more epic. The other seems more like a political drama and not as big as an adventure.

I prefer B because it generates more curiosity about the book. It provides enough information about the subject of the book and provides a little timeline.

A is too long and doesn't get to the story fast enough

it's a beautiful and short description. It makes me want to read more. I feel like the other one gives a little too much away. But honestly good job

I am intrigued to find out the nature and the identity of the unseen forces... Also the setting in England sounds more relatable and interesting. Maybe more realistic at the same time being fictional.

Option B gives me a better idea of the scope of the book. Option A makes me wonder how wide this story would be. It gives me sense of how big this story can span, and im happier knowing a story is more focused on a single continent then trying to span the globe on the forst book.. Option A also has a very cheesy ending note which is a turn off.

Grabs my attention more.

B is written better with better adjectives and descriptors

Choice A is a little too dramatic for my tastes, particularly the hackneyed style used in the opening. While I preferred B, I believe there's a typo in it, which confused me a bit before I decided it was a typo ("One such group of survivors is *LEFT* by a man" should be "*LED* by a man"). Nonetheless, the summary is much more concise and less wordy and a lot easier to read smoothly.

The sentences for choice A are choppy and at times incoherent. The paragraphs in B are smoother and the story plays out better.

Option B sounded more interesting and much less overly dramatic than option A.

This one is less cheesy and more mature. The other option feels like they're trying too hard.

It gets the plot across in a coherent and simplified manner.

The description sounds more inticing

B-it tells you enough to get your interest, while coming across as mush more plausible than A -which seems intent on stuffing every sci-fi trope it can think of.

I'm more interested in historical topics

This one is shorter and I feel it's sufficiently detailed for most readers. I feel the other version is too lengthy and may lose the average reader's attention.

It is more concise and to the point

I chose optionB, because I felt like lotion A told me the whole story and now Indont want to read it at all. b left more out there for me to discover on my own. Option B just gave me the basic information and sounded like I would want to give it a try.

it just sounds a little more believable

I like the way B flows. Feels more personal. Also, shorter so easier to process quickly.

I like the it quickly identifies the setting as an almost apolocalyptic Europe.

Even though it has some grammar errors, I think this short summary is more exciting. The other reads like a list.

Seems more straightforward and less like it's trying to oversell the premise

Intro in A is just a collection of facts, not prose.

simple and too the point