The assertion of universal proposition through a particular observation is inductive generalization. But when more than one attributes were present for more than one phenomenon then we take the help of analogy. When we are confirming a causal law with enumeration then it was done by number of analogies. Thus the criteria of analogical arguments apply to enumeration also; like in the case of blue litmus paper turning red when dipped in the acid. At times the enumeration is used to establish causal law in history. This can make us go unnoticing the negative aspects of those analogies. But the advance in learning gave rise to inductive procedures. It developed and depends upon:
1.The method of agreement
2.The method of difference.
3.The joint method of agreement and difference
4.The method of residues
5.The method of concomitant variation.
If one or more instances of the phenomenon are under the investigation have more than one circumstance then the circumstance, which includes all the conditions can be considered as the cause.
This helps in reducing the method of enumerating in conforming the effect. If ABCD cause WXYZ and AEFG cause WXYZ then from the enumeration BCD and EFG were removed and A is considered as the cause. Sometimes the absence of agreement helps us in finding the right cause. Thus this helps in reducing enumeration but not result in finding fact and cause in all the instances. In some social instances like spending of money on education the results in different contexts were mutually contradictive. ...