080 PONTIFICIAE ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARVM SCRIPTA VARIA - 28 
test performed by Arrais. I can well understand that one cannot 
rest much on an argument such as this one, since these numbers 
are very rough and are subject to substantial errors of measure- 
ment. Indeed, as ALLAIS has shown, even plausible errors of 
measurement can lead to this result. On the other hand, I am 
anable to understand why these numbers are appropriate for ALLAIS 
to use and not appropriate for me to criticize. Professor ALLAIS 
.nsists upon saying that everything goes according to his model. 
In fact, this does not go according to his model, and while that 
may be the result of measurement error, it may equally not be. It 
s, of course, all too common for an investigator to claim that num- 
ders which apparently point opposite to his theory are subject to 
measurement error. Professor ArLals, however, is managing to do 
more than that. First he puts forth these numbers as supporting his 
theory; then, when I point out that in fact they do not support it, 
he claims that is due to measurement error; finally, he claims that 
n fact they do support it. Professor ALLAIS is working both sides 
of the street here and I am afraid I cannot understand his somewhat 
engthy argument on this point. 
ALLAIS 
First, in my opinion it is impossible to attach any importance 
to these slight differences because the precision of the different 
estimates is quite small and it is difficult to derive any conclusion 
from small deviations which are probably of a random character. 
For instance, if you consider the 58 Corin CLARK figures for 
21 countries cited by me in Table V, p. 54 of my Tokyo paper 
(ALLAIS, 1960 A), the range for y is quite large, from 0.83 to 8.48. 
The median is 3.54 and the coefficient of variation about it is 22%. 
If you consider each of the 58 figures, this is certainly wrong 
and only the median of the lognormal distribution has any real 
meaning. 
11] Allais - pag. 284