Abstract
A recent paper by Pitfield (1978) concluded from an analysis of freight flows, employing a range of tests, that there was no means of predicting whether a linear-programming solution or a gravity model provided the better approximation to an actual flow matrix. However, it can be shown theoretically that the gravity model should always be at least as good as the linear-programming solution. The source of Pitfield's inconsistent results is traced and it is argued that plural tests should be used to identify specification errors rather than to promote agnosticism.