System: You are a helpful and precise assistant in checking the quality of the answer.
User: We would like to request your feedback on the performance of the response of the assistant to the user instruction displayed below. In the feedback, I want you to rate the quality of the response in these 3 categories according to each scoring rubric:

Readability: Is the response structured to promote readability and coherence? Does the response exhibit excellent organization?
Score 1: The response is completely unclear, making comprehension difficult.
Score 2: The response has significant areas of ambiguity or disorganization, critically affecting reader comprehension.
Score 3: The response contains some unclear components, or its organization could be improved.
Score 4: The response is generally understandable but could be further optimized for readability.
Score 5: The response is clear and well-organized, enabling the reader to effortlessly follow the content.
Comprehension: Does the response fulfill the requirements of the instruction by providing relevant information especially when the instruction is complex and includes multiple requirements? This includes responding in accordance with the explicit and implicit purpose of given instruction.
Score 1: The response is completely unrelated to the instruction, or the model entirely misunderstands the instruction.
Score 2: Most of the key points in the response are irrelevant to the instruction, and the response misses major requirements of the instruction.
Score 3: Some major points in the response contain irrelevant information or miss some requirements of the instruction.
Score 4: The response is relevant to the instruction but misses minor requirements of the instruction.
Score 5: The response is perfectly relevant to the instruction, and the model fulfills all of the requirements of the instruction.
Conciseness: Is the response presented in a concise manner for the reader without any unnecessary information?
Score 1: The response is highly redundant or contains a lot of unnecessary information, requiring a complete rewrite for optimal clarity and efficiency.
Score 2: The response lacks conciseness and needs a substantial rewrite for better optimization.
Score 3: The response is somewhat concise but includes unnecessary information, requiring some edits for improved optimization.
Score 4: The response is mostly concise but could benefit from minor edits for better optimization.
Score 5: The response is optimally concise and does not contain any unnecessary information, requiring no further optimization.
[Instruction]
In this task, your job is to execute summarization, with the aim of refining the original lengthy response into a more concise version. Carefully read the provided question and corresponding long-form answer, then proceed to eliminate less significant sentences to construct a condensed and concise response. Remember that you should not change the contents of survived sentences, i.e., extractive summarization.\n\nQuestion: If 1 burger takes 1300 gallons of fresh water to produce, how can I buy them for under $5.00?\n\nOriginal Answer: Farms don't use treated city water, they use well water. They dig a big hole and bury a $2000 pump at the bottom and they have all the groundwater under their property for 30 years or so. It's vastly cheaper than the cleaned and fluoridated wonder-water we feed humans, because we really don't care if our cows have bad teeth.\n\nThere's a lot of controversy about cows and water, but it's important to remember that water doesn't travel all that well. Most places in the Americas have excess water, with great underground flows carrying rainwater out to sea. Farms in non-arid parts of the world do not change the level of the water table, and pose no environmental or water hazard. A cow raised outside Seattle can drink and drink and not make a lick of difference because there's just so much water that feed rather than water becomes the limiting agent on raising them there.\n\nIf you're concerned about California's water situation and think farmers are to blame, go ahead and boycott beef grown in southern states. That's probably an ecologically sound move. But Montana doesn't have a water crisis, and saving their water by not eating their beef isn't going to help anyone.

[Ground truth Answer]
Farms don't use treated city water, they use well water. They dig a big hole and bury a $2000 pump at the bottom and they have all the groundwater under their property for 30 years or so. It's vastly cheaper than the cleaned and fluoridated wonder-water we feed humans, because we really don't care if our cows have bad teeth. There's a lot of controversy about cows and water, but it's important to remember that water doesn't travel all that well. Most places in the Americas have excess water, with great underground flows carrying rainwater out to sea. Farms in non-arid parts of the world do not change the level of the water table, and pose no environmental or water hazard. A cow raised outside Seattle can drink and drink and not make a lick of difference because there's just so much water that feed rather than water becomes the limiting agent on raising them there. If you're concerned about California's water situation and think farmers are to blame, go ahead and boycott beef grown in southern states. That's probably an ecologically sound move. But Montana doesn't have a water crisis, and saving their water by not eating their beef isn't going to help anyone.

[Assistant's Response]
Producing a burger typically requires 1,300 gallons of fresh water, but farms often use well water, which is significantly cheaper than treated city water. They access groundwater through pumps, allowing them to raise cattle without impacting the water table in non-arid regions. In areas with abundant water, such as outside Seattle, the water supply is sufficient for cattle without environmental concerns. If you're worried about water usage in California, consider boycotting beef from southern states, as regions like Montana do not face water crises and their beef production does not contribute to water shortages.

[The End of Assistant's Response]

Please give feedback on the assistant's responses. Also, provide the assistant with a score on a scale of 1 to 5 for each category, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Make sure to give feedback or comments for each category first and then write the score for each category. Only write the feedback corresponding to the scoring rubric for each category. The scores of each category should be orthogonal, indicating that 'Efficiency of User Alignment' should not be considered for 'Readability of User Alignment' category, for example. 

Lastly, return a Python dictionary object that has skillset names as keys and the corresponding scores as values.

[System]



Assistant: