The averages of these remnants, for reading, vocabulary, and completion, correlate -.61 in 1918 and -.49 in 1920 with IQ. These remnants are in negative association to intelligence. If the intercorrelations of these remnants were due to a “General Factor,” this correlation would not be negative. Therefore intelligence is far and away the most important determinant of individual differences in product. As part of the relation between tests, irrespective of intelligence, is due to common elements in the tests, this reasoning becomes still more probable. General factor in education, as distinct from intelligence, has not been separated here from inherited bases of ambition, concentration, and industry. It seems out of our province to conjure up some inherited complex of abilities other than intelligence, specialized inherited abilities, or proclivities and interests tending to thorough prosecution of school work. I have therefore meant this last by the general factor. McCall has correlations varying continually in size from -.63 to +.98 between various measurements of a group of 6B children.[17] The abilities involved were not pushed as are those considered here. Some of the low correlations are no doubt indications of low association because of the way children _are_, not the way they _might be_ by heritage; still others, such as handwriting and cancellation (unless bright children do badly in cancellation tests because they are _more bored_ than the others), are correlated low or negatively with intelligence when the correlation is at its maximum. Such results as those of McCall serve as a guide not to argue about other tests by analogy. It is necessary to find which traits and abilities can be pushed to unity in their relation to intelligence and which, like handwriting, are practically unrelated to general mental power. It is well to know about music tests and such tests as Stenquist’s mechanical ability test _when the correlation with intelligence is pushed_, before we decide whether the quality measured is a manifestation of specific talent or general intelligence. Cyril Burt obtained data much like that presented here except that instead of getting rid of the influence of intelligence and finding determinants for the remnants of disparity, he built up a hierarchy of coefficients as they would be if they were due entirely to a common factor and compared these with his obtained _r_’s. I will present his conclusions with regard to a general factor which are in substantial though not complete agreement with those advanced here. “Evidence of a Single Common Factor.