Lack of variability, faulty assumptions cited as ‘fundamental logical errors’
By: Teresa Craighead
“What they are doing in this paper is trying to put forward a logical argument to set up a premise, to analyze it and to draw conclusions. The problem is that they commit some really basic logical errors, and you don’t have to be a logician to understand them.”
—Dr. Anne Coughlan, professor of marketing, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
On October 13-15, 2020, the Direct Selling Association (DSA) held a virtual Legal and Regulatory Seminar that included a session discussing the Andrew Stivers, Douglas Smith, and Ginger Jin paper, “The Alchemy of a Pyramid” with three experts: Dr. Anne Coughlan, the Polk Bros. Chair in Retailing and professor of marketing at Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University; Dr. Patrick Brockett, the Gus Wortham Memorial Chair in Risk Management and Insurance at McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin; and Dr. Linda Ferrell, Marketing Department Chair and professor of marketing at Harbert College of Business, Auburn University. Comments in this article are taken from that discussion.
In the July 2020 issue of Social Selling News, we published an article, titled “FTC Reveals True Goals in Research Paper” (page 24), in which we discussed some of the conclusions reached in a paper published by SSRN, an international social sciences research journal.
Please log in (or register) to continue viewing this content.