At least that is the generally held view,and in the 1950 and 1960 it crystallised aroundthe belief that it was possible to predict a student's future progress on the basis of linguistic aptitude tests. But it soon became clear that such tests were flawed in a number of ways. They didn't appear to measure anything other than general intellectual ability even though they ostensibly looked for linguistic talents. Furthermore, they favoured analytic-type learners over their more 'holistic' counterparts, so the tests were especially suited to people who have little trouble doing grammar -focused tasks. Those with a more 'general' view of things- whose analytical abilities are not so highly developed, and who receive and use language in a more message - oriented way- appeared to be at a disadvantage.