 What is NOT a recommendation they make in future experiments?
The point of the second test was not to find the difference between cheap and expensive beers but instead to compare a variety of top-of-the-line beers. Since the tasting panel had left the first round grumbling that cheap lagers were not a fair test of their abilities, this second round of testing was advertised to the panel as a reward. One aspect of the reward was that they would presumably enjoy the actual testing more--fewer rueful beer descriptions along the lines of "urine" or "get it away!" were expected than in the first round. The other aspect of anticipated reward was the panelists' unspoken but obvious assumption that this time they would "do better" on the test. Of course they were right, which is what made this round as amusing to administer as the first one had been. Here is what happened and what it meant: 1. Procedure. This was similar in most ways to the experimental approach of Round 1. The nine testers who showed up were a subset of the original 12. The missing three dropped out with excuses of "my wife is sick" (one person) and "meeting is running long" (two). As before, each tester found before him on a table 10 red plastic cups, labeled A through J. The A-to-J labeling scheme was the same for all testers. Descriptions of and comments about each beer's taste--"smooth and nutty," "too strong," etc.
 Give the test subjects a palette cleanser (they didn't and it would make the data a lot cleaner in future studies)
 If you're going to test a certain type of beer, they recommended specific brands to try and one to avoid  Give the test subjects a palette cleanser (they didn't and it would make the data a lot cleaner in future studies)  Provide the test subjects with different information  If you're running the experiment, you can't participate as well