A number of studies have suggested that under some conditions sequence learning may be implicit and outside consciousness. Others suggest that a sequence can be learned with minimal involvement of attention when the sequence contains unique associations between some elements. In a recent paper, Perruchet and Amorim have questioned these suggestions and concluded on the basis of three experiments that consciousness is necessary for learning sequences, and that unique associations may not be essential in learning without attention. In this article we point out that there are a number of flaws in the arguments made by Perruchet and Amorim: They wrongly equated tasks with knowledge, they wrongly assumed that correlations under some conditions preclude dissociations under many other conditions, and they misinterpreted claims concerning unique associations between elements in a sequence. We claim that the experiments and analyses conducted by Perruchet and Amorim are not diagnostic to these issues, so their conclusions are unwarranted. 9