 What isn't a conclusion drawn?
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. 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. Intellectual vanity being what it is, people who had fought for and won jobs at Microsoft and who still must fight every six months for primacy on the employee-ranking scale (which determines--gasp!--how many new stock options they receive) would assume that their skill as tasters was on trial, just as much as the beer was. Here is what happened and what it meant: 1. Procedure. This was similar in most ways to the experimental approach of Round 1. The missing three dropped out with excuses of "my wife is sick" (one person) and "meeting is running long" (two). 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. Best and Worst , one of each from the group. 2. Philosophy. This is in contrast with an ale, which is brewed faster, warmer, and with the yeast on top.
 Sam Adams was easily identifiable
 Michelob Hefeweizen is a great beer for the cost  Anheuser-Busch lived up to its popularity  Sam Adams was easily identifiable  Pyramid Hefeweizen is not worth the money