In the "intermediate course, second year," there were two children who obtained 0 and 1. In the "intermediate course, first year," there were four who got 0, and one who got only 1. What were these pupils, who had certainly not reached the average intellectual level of eleven years? Two are said to be defectives by the head-master. Let us subtract them, and there remain five; and these work sufficiently well to remain in their class and to follow the lessons. Their success is a very important fact. A child may not have very much intelligence, but if he has a good memory, application, and will, he is regular in his studies, and this compensates for the mental feebleness. We have often noticed this. If a child is regular in his school work, the question whether he is a defective does not present itself. It only presents itself if the case is reversed. Supposing he is very clearly backward, by two years, by three years, with a sufficient school attendance. If, in spite of this retardation, the psychological examination shows that he is all the same quite intelligent, this is a favourable circumstance of which he should have the advantage. In other terms, the psychological examination is capable of showing that he is normal, even when he is behindhand in his studies. This examination cannot, in any case, serve to make him be regarded as defective if he is regular in his studies. This is why we place this examination last. Here are some very good replies from normal children: _G. R----_: 10. It would be necessary to consider where the affair would lead us. 11. Because when a bad action is done without anger one knows what one is doing, while when one is angry one does not know what one is doing. 12. One should say nothing. If one does not know the person one cannot tell what he is. 13. By his words he may deceive us. By his acts we can tell what he is. _G----_: 10. It is necessary to think what one is going to do. 11. Because when one acts without anger one has thought beforehand, and is more to blame; while, on the other hand, it is an act of passion, and afterwards one regrets what one has done. 12. I would say that it would be necessary to know him first and then afterwards to judge him, not to say anything bad or good about him without knowing him. 13. Because there are people who say words and often do not do them. Here are some replies which are mediocre or absurd: 12. You should try to ask the particulars of the person you do not know. (Mediocre.) 13. Because his acts are more terrible while his words are less threatening. (Mediocre.) 11. Because the action which has been done in anger is not so violent. (Mediocre.) 13. Because you must not speak after the person who speaks. (Absurd.)