Stochastic unpaced line design: A reply

In the ‘Note’ which immediately precedes this ‘reply’, the authors take issue with our conclusions, based primarily on their view that our 1985 experiments were ‘flawed’. While the ‘Note’ authors provide some valuable arguments and correctly point out a weakness concerning the number of simulation repetitions in our 1985 study, in general it is their arguments that are ‘flawed’, as we will establish in this paper. In responding to the preceding ‘Note’, we have conducted a very extensive simulation experiment-much larger than either our 1985 study or the small study conducted as part of the preceding paper. The results of this enhanced study provide strong support for the conclusions of our 1985 paper. [See previous abstract and 45482.]