I also somewhat disagree with Krunchy’s comment. As someone who works with others on loglines, specifically, at times this is the ONLY way to show them the path. You can explain, instruct, define, and critique all day long, but until they see how it could or should look, they usually never “get it”.

Adrians comments about “Goldfish” are about what he wants to see and are highly subjective. He does touch on one point though & that of the GOAL of the hero.
David Mamets puts it succinctly –
“What does the hero want? What hinders him from getting it? What happens if he does not get it?” from David Mamet, A Whore’s Profession

If the observations were taken from a coolly critical standpoint then participants should be invited to resubmit their logline and we can all judge if their loglines improve, become clearer.

One other thing I will say about most of the loglines I have read so far is you don’t feel their is anything really at stake for the HERO, the important ingredient that would draw the reader or audience into the story.