> (A)Group II  JAW(evaluators)
> 
> (B)Group  I  Dissolve in water
> 
> (1) problem definition and selection : 13
> 
> (2) Proposed spectroscopic solution : 13
> 
> (3) Market screening : 9
> 
> (4) Class selection : 8
> 
> (5) Detailed Comparision of Alternative. part I: 8
> 
> (6) Detailed comparision of Alternative. part II: 8
> 
> (7) Detailed comparision of Alternative. part III: 9
> 
> (8) Pros and Cons: The verdict.: 8
> 
> (9) Overall Impresion.: 9
> 

>  Group 1--- Dissolve In Water
>  (A) Group-3:  Bible Study Class
>  (B) Group-1: Dissolved In Water
>  (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
>      (1). Problem Definition and Selection: 13
>           It seem the project is very exciting!!! Fight against
crimes....
>      (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:10
>           Why do you not choose GC-IR? In fact, we think that GC-IR is
> another choice. It is not time-consuming, moreover, GC is used for
> purification. 
>      (3). Market Screening:8 
>      (4). Class Selection: 8
>      (5). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part I Characteristics 7
>      (6). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part II Completeness: 9
>      (7). Detailed Comparison of Alternative: Part III Costs: 9 
>      (8). Pros & Cons:8
>      (9). Overall Impression: 9  

  B)Group 1:Dissolved in water
         
         C)(1) Problem definition and selection:11.5
               Problem is not too well defined ,need to be a bit more
               subjective 
           (2) Proposed spectroscopic solution:10
               Concentrated only on GC-MS no other spectroscopic methods
               were compared with. 
           (3) Market screening:10
               All the major companies in the market were contacted.
           (4) Class selection:9
               Very elucidative and clear distinctions were made 
           (5) Detailed comparison of alternatives:Characteristics:7 
               Three most decisive characteristics not properly discussed.
           (6) Completeness of quotes:8.5
               The comparison range is vivid and detailed.
           (7) Costs:8.5
               The cost for items of JEOL JMS-GC mate was all under one
               heading it could have been splitted to give the cost for
               individual items.
           (8) Pros and cons:8.5
               The main decision was price oriented however a point well
               illustrated is that JEOL JMS-GC mate of JEOL uses 
               Hewlett-Packard 6890 GC for the GC component.
           (9) Overall impression:8.5
               Although the project lacked proper motive the background is
               very realistic and convincing.
            
             Total points:81

A) Evaluators: Group 5, Alcohol Protecting Group
B) Evaluees: Group 1, Dissolved In H2O
C)1.Definition and Selection:  14 points
	Problem was defined well.  The need to analyze/characterize
illegal drugs is realistic and the ideas regarding this are well thought
out. The example to two drugs that might be tested for was a good idea.
  2.  Solution:  14 points
	Clear thoughts are expressed when stating why GCMS would be an
appropriate method for drug sample analysis.
  3.  Market Screen:  9 points
	The 5 Company requirement was met, with links included.  The only
thing that may have been nice, was a short description of the type of
instrument each company offered. IE State which company only had self
assembled, top of the line instruments.
  4.  Class Selection: 8 points
	It is clear that top of the line is not what is being considered,
but a break down of the middle-of-the-road bench top devices would have
been helpful.
  5.  Characteristics:  6 points
	The three most important characteristics were not clearly and
concisely defined.  Several things were mentioned (ionization
capabilities, automated injection, etc), but it was difficult to pinpoint
3 characteristics of highest importance.
  6.  Completeness:   6 Points
	The quote is good, except for the dashes (-) shown in the chart.
Do they mean these things are not available or do they mean you did not
have individualized prices for these items? 
  7.  Costs:   9 points
	 The origin of quote and period of validity information was good.
Prices for the GC columns would have been good.
  8.  Pros and Cons:  9 points
	The final decision to purchase the less glamorous GC was reached
in a fairly clear, rational way.
  9.  Overall:  8 points
	Good Job.  Minor revisions recommended:  More detail on GC columns
available and highlight the 3 most important aspects the group was
considering. The layout of the HTML was well done.