This article is a reply to a critique by Gold and Pray (1995, this issue) of the previous article wherein a new proof process and a new market demand function were presented. Gold and Pray's critique suggests that simulation designers ought to be bound by "conventional economic wisdom" when designing computerized business simulations. Several issues of importance to simulation designers and users are discussed.
Ackoff, R. L.
, & Emshoff, J. R. (1975a). Advertising research at Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (19631968). Sloan Management Review, Winter, 1-15.
2.
Ackoff, R. L.
, & Emshoff, J. R. (1975b). A reply to the comments of Yvan Allaire. (1963-1968). Sloan Management Review, Spring, 95-98.
3.
Allaire, Y
(1975). SRM forum: A multivariate puzzle: A comment on "Advertising Research at Anheuser-Busch, Inc." (1963-1968). Sloan Management Review, Spring, 91-94.
4.
Carvalho, G. F.
(1991). Evaluating computerized business simulators for objective learning validity. Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal, 22, 328-348.
5.
Carvalho, G. F
(1995). Modeling the law of demand in business simulators. Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal, 26 (1), 60-79.
6.
Gold, S. C.
, & Pray, T. F (1995). The use of the gamma probability distribution: A critique of Carvalho's demand simulator. Simulation & Gaming: An International Journal, 26 (1).
7.
Nicholson, W.
(1985). Microeconomic theory (3rd ed.). Chicago: Dryden.
8.
Pray, T. F
, & Gold, S. (1982). Inside the black box: An analysis of underlying demand functions in contemporary business simulations. Developments in Business and Experiential Exercises, 9, 110-115.
