THE AUTHORS OF THIS REBUTTAL ORIGINALLY USED DATA FROM THE NATIONAL CRIME SURVEY TO TEST SOME OF THE THEORIES IN BLACK'S BOOK. THE DATA FAILED TO SUPPORT BLACK'S HYPOTHESIS THAT THOSE WHO ARE POOR, OF LOW SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, HAVE LITTLE SOCIAL SUPPORT, AND LIVE IN AREAS OF LOW SOCIAL CONTROL ALSO HAVE LITTLE ACCESS TO THE LAW. INSTEAD, THE VICTIMIZATION DATA INDICATED THAT POOR PERSONS LIVING IN LOW-INCOME AREAS WERE JUST AS LIKELY TO REPORT CRIMES TO THE POLICE AS MORE WEALTHY PERSONS LIVING IN MORE 'INTEGRATED' AREAS. (SEE NCJ-55047.) IN A CRITIQUE OF THIS ARTICLE, BLACK CRITICIZED THE USE OF THE NATIONAL CRIME SURVEY. HE SUGGESTED THAT THE DEFINITIONS OF 'CRIME' AND 'SERIOUSNESS' WERE VAGUE AND THAT THE SAMPLE WAS BIASED AGAINST THE POOR. (SEE NCJ-55048.) IN THIS REBUTTAL TO BLACK'S CRITICISM, THE AUTHORS WHO USED THE CRIME SURVEY DATA TO TEST BLACK'S THEORIES DEFEND THEIR TECHNIQUE. THE SURVEY DATA ARE JUDGED TO BE SOUND. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT BLACK USED SIMILAR DATA WHEN HE WROTE THE ORIGINAL BOOK. IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE TERMS 'CRIME' AND 'SERIOUS' WERE QUITE CLEAR TO THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND THAT POLICE ATTITUDES WERE NOT THE ISSUE. IT IS CHARGED THAT BLACK'S THEORIES ARE ALSO VAGUE AND THAT 'COMMON SENSE' CANNOT REPLACE THE USE OF VERIFIABLE DATA IN SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH. BLACK'S ARGUMENT THAT SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY MUST BE DEVELOPED IN ITS PURE FORM IS REBUTTED BY STATING THAT SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY MUST AGREE WITH FACTS. EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES AUGMENT THE DISCUSSION. REFERENCES ARE APPENDED. (GLR)