Text 1: The famous pothole on Main Street was several inches deep before the city managed to address the situation. The hole was first reported three years ago. Over time, it grew deeper and cost local residents more tires with each passing month. After much debate, the city finally hired a local private business to fill the hole and patch the pavement. Given the city’s lack of working street equipment, this was clearly the right call.
Text 2: Everyone was aware of the pothole on Main Street, but it remained a steadfast resident of our town for three years, nonetheless. Its presence gave us so many choices. Should we drivers take a different route or run over the hole and hope for the best? Was it wiser to trust the city to handle it, or should some brave citizens have jumped in to save us all? Should that brave citizen have used gravel, cement, or something vastly more entertaining—such as rubber cement? At least then we could have had a town trampoline, if not safe and smooth roads for all.
Question
Use the two texts to answer the question.
Which statement best explains why one text is more believable than the other?
(1 point)
Responses
Text 1 is more believable because it explains events and then makes a logical claim evaluating those events.
Text 1 is more believable because it explains events and then makes a logical claim evaluating those events.
Text 2 is more believable because it demonstrates the frustration people felt regarding the pothole.
Text 2 is more believable because it demonstrates the frustration people felt regarding the pothole.
Text 2 is more believable because it shows both sides of the issue before it makes a claim.
Text 2 is more believable because it shows both sides of the issue before it makes a claim.
Text 1 is more believable because it comes to the correct conclusion about what should have happened.