|____________________|_______________|________________________________|
| | | | | | |
| 1 | AE | AE | 2 of A | -- | -- |
| 2 | AF | BE | 1 of A | 1 of B | -- |
| 3 | BF | -- | -- | 1 of B | -- |
| 4 | BG | CF | -- | 1 of B | 1 of C |
| 5 | CG | CG | -- | -- | 2 of C |
|____________________|_______|_______|__________|__________|__________|

It clearly appears from this table that the effect of correlation
between Ability and Environment is to increase, and not to diminish,
the closeness of association between Success and Ability. Indeed, if
the correlation were perfect, Success would become an equal measure
_both_ of Ability and of Favourableness of Environment.

These arguments are true for each and every branch of Success, and
are therefore true for all: Ability being construed as Appropriate
Ability, and Environment as Appropriate Environment.

The general conclusion is that Success is, statistically speaking, a
magnified, but otherwise trustworthy, sign of Ability, high Success
being associated with high, but not an equally high, grade of
Ability, and low with low, but not an equally low. A few instances to
the contrary no more contradict this important general conclusion
than a few cases of death at very early or at very late ages
contradict the tables of expectation of life of a newly-born infant.