Let the ambitious student make an Abstract of any chapter of John Stuart Mill's Logic, and then compare his work with the Analysis of this same chapter by the Rev. A. H. Killick (published by Longmans), and he will at once see the enormous difference between the essentials and the non-essentials--the difference between the subject of discussion and the _explanation_ or _exposition_ of it. The student's abstract, if printed, would extend over twenty to thirty pages. Mr. Killick's only occupies two to five pages. But do not reverse the process and read Mr. Killick's Analysis first and then make your Abstract. The latter, however, is _the easier_, _the usual_, and _the useless_ method. Let the student continue this comparison till he attains very nearly the brevity and discrimination displayed by Mr. Killick. Or, if he prefers History, let him write a summary of any chapter of Green's "Short History of the English People," and then compare his digest with Mr. C. W. A. Tait's Analysis of the same chapter (now bound up with Green's History, as lately published in England). It would be a capital training for the student to abstract the whole of Green's work and compare his abridgment of each chapter with that of Mr. Tait. After considerable practice in this way in making Abstracts and _comparing his work with that of such Masterly Abstractors_ as Dr. Killick and Mr. Tait, the student who needs this training is prepared to make abstracts of his own text-books. Any other work of which an Abstract is published will serve the student as well as the above. There were formerly published Abstracts of several law books. And there may be other works whose abstracts are available to the ambitious student.