4. All the quotient methods of defining the borderline encounter a serious practical difficulty in fixing the borderline for the mature, so that it will be equivalent to that for the immature. With the Stanford scale in calculating the quotient for adults, no divisor is used over 16 years. Yerkes and Bridges also think that this is about the time that the development of capacity ceases. Kuhlmann and others use 15 as the highest divisor. Wallin objects to either of these ages being used as the age of arrest of mental development (_15_, p. 67). Both the methods of the standard deviation and percentage have a similar difficulty, in that the borderline for the mature has to be empirically determined on a test scale. In this dilemma, however, the data collected with the random group of 15-year-olds in Minneapolis and published in the present study, places the borderline for the mature on either the 1908 or 1911 Binet scale in a much safer position, so far as empirical data is concerned, than the borderline for the mature for any other scale. This is true whether that borderline be then stated in terms of either the quotient or percentage methods. Translated into terms of the quotient, our percentage borderlines for the mature with these scales, below X for presumably deficient and below XI for the uncertain, would amount to quotients .60 and .66 on the basis of our findings with this random group of children who have presumably about reached adult development. Pearson does not attempt to define any borderline for the adults on the basis of the deviation, since Jaederholm tested only children. Moreover, this is not possible empirically with our group of 15-year-olds, since we tested only the lower extreme of this group. Unfortunately, the borderlines of the mature for the Stanford and other scales depend upon empirical results obtained not with random groups, but upon a composite of selected groups of adults built up by the investigator on an estimate that this combined group represents a random selection among those with a typical advance in development, an almost superhuman task. Fortunately the empirical determination of this borderline for the mature might be improved later by obtaining data on less selected groups. The clearer significance of the empirical data for the borderline for the mature which I have presented for the Binet 1908 and 1911 scales from a random group of 15-year-olds seems to be an important practical advantage. It provides an empirical basis for judging the implication of test results with adults. It gives adults the benefit of the doubt if they improve after 15 years of age.