 How good were test subjects at labeling the beers in round two?
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. 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. 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. After sampling all beers, the tasters rated them as follows: Overall quality points, from zero to 100, reflecting their personal, subjective fondness for the beer. If the first ranking was a measure of how good each beer was, this was an attempt to explain what made it good. They were asked to put each beer in its proper category--and to name a specific brewery and brand if they could. This second round was All Fancy, and Mainly Not Lager.
 Few of them got anything correct
 Few of them got anything correct  None of them could guess any of them  Most of them got most things correct  Most of them got them perfect