It took
quite a while" instead of "it took some time" is satisfactory; likewise,
"got burnt" for "was burned"; "who was sleeping" for "who was asleep";
"are homeless" for "lost their homes"; "in the middle" for "near the
center"; "a big fire" for "a fire," etc.

Memories as badly mutilated as the following, however, are not counted:
"A lot of buildings" for "three houses;" "a man" for "a fireman"; "who
was sick" for "who was asleep"; etc. Occasionally we may give half
credit, as in the case of "was seventeen thousand dollars" for "was
fifty thousand dollars"; "and fifteen families" for "and seventeen
families," etc.

REMARKS. Are we warranted in using at all as a measure of intelligence a
test which depends as much on instruction as this one does? Many are
inclined to answer this question in the negative. The test has been
omitted from the revisions of Goddard, Kuhlmann, and Binet himself. As
regards Binet's earlier test of reading for two memories, in year VIII,
there could hardly be any difference of opinion. The ability to read at
that age depends so much on the accident of environment that the test is
meaningless unless we know all about the conditions which have
surrounded the child.

The use of the test in year X, however, is a very different matter.
There are comparatively few children of that age who will fail to pass
it for lack of the requisite school instruction. Children of 10 years
who have attended school with reasonable regularity for three years are
practically always able to read the selection in thirty-five seconds and
without over two mistakes unless they are retarded almost to the
border-line of mental deficiency. Of our 10-year-olds who failed to meet
the test, only a fourth did so because of inability to meet the reading
requirements as regards time or mistakes. The remaining failures were
caused by inadequate report, and most of these subjects were of the
distinctly retarded group.

We may conclude, therefore, that given anything approaching normal
educational advantages, the test is really a measure of intelligence.
Used with due caution, it is perhaps as valuable as any other test in
the scale. It is only necessary, in case of failure, to ascertain the
facts regarding the child's educational opportunities. Even this
precaution is superfluous in case the subject tests as low as 8 years by
the remainder of the scale. A safe rule is to omit the test from the
calculation of mental age if the su