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:

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.
Completeness: Does the response provide a sufficient explanation? Comprehensiveness and thoroughness of the response should be considered, which depends on the breadth of topics covered and the level of detail provided within each topic.
Score 1: The response doesn't include any specifics or examples to support the statements made.
Score 2: The response does not provide sufficient details or supportive examples, requiring a major effort to make the response more complete.
Score 3: It is a decent response, but the breadth and depth of the response are rather limited. The details and examples used to substantiate the response may be insufficient.
Score 4: The response provides detailed explanations, but there is room for enhancement. The response could be further improved by including more details and supportive examples.
Score 5: The response fully provides comprehensive explanations. It delves deep into the topic, providing as much detail as possible, and it offers several examples to back up its points.
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]
Please let me know all available entities for the provided question.\nQuestion: List people who went to the University of Cincinnati but were not United States Marines and did not go to Harvard Law School.

[Ground truth Answer]
Charles Ansbacher, J. Lincoln Newhall, John Hejduk, Urban Meyer, Armand Spitz, Mark P. Painter, James Duesing, Dane A. Miller, Ronald L. Jackson II, Francis Loewenheim, Oscar Robertson, William Lofland Dudley, Albert Joyce Riker, Christie Bryant, Gary R. Johnson, Mark Nigrini, Anna Christy, Arion Golmakani, Balfour Brickner, Ahn Eak-tai, Paul Herget, Dan Trueman, David Meister, David Minda, Diane F. Halpern, Aaron Betsky, Donald Andrew Spencer, Sr., Edward Nathan Calisch, Emmett L. Bennett, Jr., Frank Kelley, Frank P. Austin, Gary A. Myers, George Rieveschl, Gloria Niemeyer Francke, Helen Iglauer Glueck, Inez Beverly Prosser, Jack L. Davis, Jeannine Hall Gailey, Jerry Hunter, Jimmy Baker, Jo Anne Lyon, Kevin McCollum, Lee Roy Reams, Marco Marsan, Mary Ellen Mazey, Morihiko Nakahara, Xian Zhang, Pakkiri Rajagopal, Rex M. Rogers, Robert A. Scholtz, Shawn Sturgeon, Sheryl Spalding, Sokoni Karanja, Stacey B. Day, Stanley M. Chesley, Tyrone Yates

[Assistant's Response]
To address your question about listing individuals who attended the University of Cincinnati but did not serve in the United States Marines and did not attend Harvard Law School, here are some key points to consider:

1. **Criteria for Selection**:
   - Attended the University of Cincinnati.
   - Did not serve in the United States Marines.
   - Did not attend Harvard Law School.

2. **Data Availability**:
   - Unfortunately, I do not have access to specific databases or lists that would allow me to provide names of individuals who meet these criteria. 

3. **Suggested Resources**:
   - **Alumni Directories**: Many universities maintain alumni directories that can be searched for graduates.
   - **Social Media Platforms**: LinkedIn can be a useful tool to find professionals who attended the University of Cincinnati.
   - **Public Records**: Some public databases may provide information on educational backgrounds.

If you have any other questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask!

[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: