(A) Group 1:Dissolved in Water: Mike Lewis, Emma Treuten, and Paul Benny

(B) Group 4:Gang of Three-Sundeep Rayat, Subharata Sen, and Dannie
Phillips

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Problem Definition and Selection: (0-15)	13
    *Excellent Idea
(2) Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: (0-15)	13 
(3) Market Screening: (0-10)			7
(4) Class Selection: (0-10)			5
     *No mention of Class Selection
(5) Part I: Characteristics. (0-10)		9
(6)  Part II: Completeness of Quote. (0-10)	8
(7) Part III: Costs. (0-10)			6
     *No time period listed for a valid quote
(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. (0-10)		9
(9) Overall Impression. (0-10)			9
     * Very well done, definitely a possibility for research.
TOTAL						79

(A) Group-2:JAW(Evaluator)
     (B) Group-4: The Gang of Three(Evaluee)
     (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
         (1). Problem Definition and Selection: 12
              The problem definition is complete 
         (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:14
              The solution is unique      
         (3). Market Screening:6
              The company list is complete. but the we don't know how they
              screened  
         (4). Class Selection:8
              In this section, the two instruments satisfy research
              requirement.What is the disadvantage of the other three.
         (5). Detailed Comparison( Part I): Characteristics:8
              Some decisive characteristics have been described.
         (6). Detailed Comparison( Part II): Completeness 9
              All parts price are listed.
         (7). Detailed Comparison(Part III): Costs 7
              No valid time for quotation 
         (8). Pros& Cons:9
              It is a careful consideration  
         (9). Overall Impression:9
              Approve

>  Group 4--The Gang of Three
>  (A) Group-3:  Bible Study Class
>  (B) Group-4: The Gang of Three
>  (C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
>      (1). Problem Definition and Selection: 13
>      (2). Proposed Spectroscopic Solution:13
>      (3). Market Screening:8
>      (4). Class Selection:7
>           Why did you choose these two companies' products in five
>           suppliers? 
>      (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:9
>      (9). Overall Impression:8
>  

A)  Evaluators:  Group 5, Alcohol Protecting Group
B)  Evaluees:    Group 4, The Gang of Three
C)1.  Definition and Selection:  14
	Good job of defining and making things realistic.  A structure or
reaction would have been helpful
  2. Solution:  13 points
	An explaination of ESR and why it is good for looking at free
radicals would be nice.
  3. Market Screen: 9 points
	Fulfilled requirements nicely.  Including short description of
the types of instruments offered by each company would be nice.
  4. Class Selection: 1 point
	We could not find specific information in the paper regarding high
versus low end equipment.
  5. Characteristics:  7 points
	Many of characteristics are mention, but the three most important
ones do not seem to highlighted.
  6. Completeness:     8 points
	The two instruments have different types of information provided.
One is very detailed regarding software options and the other is detailed
about the actual equipment.  
  7. Costs:            8 points
	Including where the price quotes came from and how long they are
good for would be useful.
  8. Pros/Cons:        9 points
	Your thoughts going into picking the Bruker are clearly stated and
rational.   
  9  Overall:          9 points
	Considering the instrument you picked was unfamiliar to us, you
did a good job explaining why you chose what you did.  With our limited
knowledge of this topic, we would support your decision.