ind in the facts _to be
remembered_ the means of their recollection. One case more: In regard to
memorising the statement that "the Posterior Nerve of the Spinal Column
is Sensory, and the Anterior Nerve is Motor," using this Method of
Accidents, "You observe that Posterior and Sensory go together, and that
Anterior and Motor go together. The initial letters of Posterior and
Sensory are P and S, and the initial letters of Anterior and Motor are A
and M. By considering that A and M are in the upper part of the Alphabet
and P and S are in the lower part of it, you will be sure to remember
that Anterior is associated with Motor and Posterior with Sensory." I
admit that the _first time_ one hears this elaborate method applied the
novelty of the principle of it might make an impression; but, after
that, the method would probably fail from its lengthy exposition;
because it is difficult to retain the _steps of an argument_ in a weak
Memory and therefore such a method cannot certainly act as a _Means for
Aiding_ the Memory. How do I manage this case? By correlating Posterior
to Sensory, thus: _Posterior_ ... Post-Mortem ... Insensible ...
_Sensory_; or Anterior to Motor, thus: _Anterior_ ... Ant ... disturbed
anthill ... commotion ... _Motor_; or _Anterior_ ... antediluvian ...
rush of water ... water-power ... _Motor_. In uniting the two
unconnected "Extremes" together by means of a _developed Analysis
memorised_, the Natural Memory is aided in a very high degree.

1. What is every correlation?
2. Does Analysis ever make a correlation?
3. Why would not "A" make a good In. by sound with "Anchor" on
preceding page?
4. Is the method of remembering by accidental coincidences always
reliable?
5. If not, why?
6. Are there cases where it cannot be used?
7. Make an original correlation between "Mitral valves" and "left."
8. How does the accidental coincidence in connection with the
University crews compare with Synthesis?
9. Does this method make an impression on the novice at first?
10. Does the novice adhere to it?
11. Why?

BY MEMORISING a Correlation, you so unite the two EXTREMES in memory,
that you need not afterwards _recall the intermediates_. The
intermediates drop out of the memory by what Prof. E. W. Scripture,
Psychologist, of Yale University, calls the Law of Obliteration.

1. Why does the method fail?
2. Is it difficult to retain the steps of an argument in t