500 





-i>- 



bovcvar ib»«* tbovios tb« fructac C*n<l«ac7 La chit 4ir*ccloo Art taoUxt 

 whos« rcguW Waivd dtlivert lc«t chaa l.O ■( of alcocla*. A<aU ujU( 

 cta« total MaplO^ a baala for coa^rlaoo, cboaa b«lon(la« Co aocUl 

 elaaa C2 abo«> paee«r» In which praftreaca iocraaaai aloag vlch ch« 

 nlcotiae dalivec^^C^^ C^ eifaretca; howrvar thla pactara ia aora clearly 

 aeea in Cluster 10. ^y 



The poasibilicy chat <igaraCCa A had soac dafccc. or aegaciva 



V 



v. 



character, which was not pret*Dt ia Ch« oChar cigarettes has already 

 been aentiooed. Certainly the dkffercne* io preference between A and I 



(Table 4} was out of proportion to dU dif faraaca u> aicotine, sod it 



is |g>s*ible that the inclusion of A nay ^\5vc bLassed the relative placiags 



of B, cj^< 



6 

 >iaea 



■ll«r in nicotioa 



^Jkod D as computed by the Round Robid^ p^gras. In Table 6 tha 

 only rasul^ fif>nsidered are tbosa in which B walgcpaparad with C and 

 with D; «od si^^ tha latter tvo cigarettes were va^^ 

 delivery th«s« two nired comparisons have been coabine'i^^to show ch* 

 percentage of s«ok«rs ^Aferring B when coapared with C/D. 



TABU 6 



PERCEIVTMZ P 



^|CB 



R£NCE FOR B ACAlNST C/D 



■^ 



/-> 



'> 



y^ 



9 

 C 

 I 



C 

 N 

 I 

 0-- 



* 



