In all, five sets of the corrected figures were used.  Only the second, however, and the fifth (chronologically speaking) appeared indubitably to isolate one element above others, and gave uniform results.  But time lacked to develop the fifth sufficiently to warrant positive statement.  Certain uniformities appeared, nevertheless, in all the sets, and find due mention in the ensuing discussion.  The two figures of the second set are shown in Fig. 2.  Variation No.  III. shows a design similar to that of No.  II., but with its parts set more closely together and offering, therefore, a greater complexity.  In Table II. are given the average divisions of the nine subjects.  The total length of the figure was, as usual, 160 mm.  Varying numbers of judgments were made on the different subjects.

[Illustration:  FIG. 2.]

TABLE II.

          No.  I. No.  II.  No.  I. (reversed).  No.  II. (reversed). 
          L. R. L. R. R. L. R. L.

A       55   0    48   0         59   0              50   0
B       59   0    44   0         63   0              52   0
C       58   0    56   0         52   0              50   0
D       60   0    56   0         60   0              55   0
E       74  59    73  65         74  60              75  67
F       61  67    60  66         65  64              62  65
G       64  64    62  68         63  64              53  67
H       76  68    75  64         66  73              67  71
J       49   0    41   0         50   0              42   0
—­  —­    —­  —­         —­  —­              —­  —­
Total.  61  64    57  65         61  65              54  67

With the complex fillings at the left, it will be seen, firstly, that in every case the left judgment on No.  III. is less than that on No.  II.  With the figures reversed, the right judgments on No.  III. are less than on No.  II., with the exception of subjects E and H.  Secondly, four of the subjects only (E, F, G and H) had judgments also on the side which gave the complex filling the larger space; to E, F and G, these were secondary preferences; to H they were always primary.  Thirdly, the judgments on No.  III. are less, in spite of the fact that the larger component parts of No.  II., might be taken as additional weight to that side of the line, and given, therefore, the shorter space, according to the principle of the lever.

The subjects, then, that appear not to substantiate our suggested theory are E and H, who in the reversed figures give the shorter space to the less complex filling, and F and G, who, together with E and H, have always secondary judgments that allot to either complex filling a larger space than to the simple horizontal.  Consider, first, subjects E and H.  For each, the difference in division of II. and III.