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:

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.
Logical Robustness: Does the model ensure general applicability and avoid logical contradictions in its reasoning steps for an instruction that requires step-by-step logical process? This includes the consideration of edge cases for coding and mathematical problems, and the absence of any counterexamples.
Score 1: The logic of the model's response is completely incoherent.
Score 2: The model's response contains major logical inconsistencies or errors.
Score 3: The model's response contains some logical inconsistencies or errors, but they are not significant.
Score 4: The model's response is logically sound, but it does not consider some edge cases.
Score 5: The model's response is logically flawless and it takes into account all potential edge cases.
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.
[Instruction]
You should inspect the role of each sentence in the given long-form answer for the question. The role is one of 'Organizational sentence', 'Auxiliary Information', 'Answer', 'Example', and 'Miscellaneous'. The Organizational sentence is to inform the reader how the answer will be structured. The Auxiliary Information provides information that are related to what is discussed in the answer, but not asked in the question. The Answer is an answer sentence directly addresses the question. The Example is literally example sentence to give better understanding. The Miscellaneous contains all other sentences.\n\nQuestion: Why did we decide that certain words were "bad" and shouldn't be used in social settings?\n\nLong-form Answer:\n\nSwear words, obscenities, and derogatory terms are some categories of words that society considers 'bad' and exempt from usage in social settings. In a more definitive approach, courts presume harm from speech in cases involving discrimination or sexual harassment. While the original justification for these obscenity laws was predicated on an unfounded assumption that speech can deprave or corrupt children, and it is important to note that there is little (if any) social science data demonstrating that a word is by itself harmful, it is also pertinent to consider the origin of some derogatory words and the context of their usage to understand why they should be unacceptable in social settings. Examples include:\n-Ape/Monkey: These are considered offensive terms when used to describe a person of color because offensive comparisons of black people to apes date back hundreds of centuries, such as when scientists Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon created the 1854 Types of Mankind (a leading scientific text on race in its time), and they compared black people not to other (white) people but to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. They are now, justifiably, considered extremely derogatory slang.\n-Savage: When used as an adjective to describe acts of violence, this word is not considered offensive, but the use of 'savage' as a noun to describe people dates back to a time when Christopher Columbus was enslaving Native Americans and claiming their lands and work for his own. The word became a slur used by white Europeans to describe Native American people. The usage stuck around for hundreds of years, and it’s still a word that many indigenous peoples around the world find offensive.

[Ground truth Answer]
Auxiliary Information, Auxiliary Information, Answer, Example, Example, Example, Example, Example, Example, Example

[Assistant's Response]
To address the question of why certain words are deemed "bad" and considered unacceptable in social settings, we can analyze the provided long-form answer by examining the role of each sentence. 

1. **Organizational Sentence**: The opening statement, "Swear words, obscenities, and derogatory terms are some categories of words that society considers 'bad' and exempt from usage in social settings," serves to outline the categories of words that will be discussed, setting the stage for the subsequent analysis.

2. **Answer**: The sentence "In a more definitive approach, courts presume harm from speech in cases involving discrimination or sexual harassment" directly addresses the legal perspective on harmful speech, indicating that certain words are regulated due to their potential to cause harm in specific contexts.

3. **Auxiliary Information**: The statement, "While the original justification for these obscenity laws was predicated on an unfounded assumption that speech can deprave or corrupt children," provides additional context about the historical rationale behind the classification of certain words as "bad." It also highlights the lack of empirical evidence supporting the idea that words alone can cause harm, which is crucial for understanding the evolution of societal norms regarding language.

4. **Contextual Consideration**: The mention of the importance of understanding the origin of derogatory words and their context reinforces the idea that the meaning and acceptability of words are deeply rooted in historical and social contexts. This insight is essential for grasping why certain terms remain offensive.

5. **Examples**: The examples provided, such as "Ape/Monkey" and "Savage," illustrate specific instances of derogatory language and explain their historical significance. These examples help to concretize the abstract concepts discussed earlier by showing how language can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and social injustices.

In summary, the classification of certain words as "bad" stems from a combination of legal interpretations of harm, historical context, and societal norms. Words are not merely judged by their surface meanings but are also evaluated based on their origins and the impact they have on marginalized groups. This multifaceted approach helps explain why certain terms are socially unacceptable and highlights the ongoing need for awareness and sensitivity in language use.

[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: