INDUCTION:

Induction is a type of inference where we go from known to unknown or from less general to more general. Here, from the things that are known, we say something about things that are not known. This is the reason why in induction we always say something more than what we already know of. So, Induction, a form of argument in which the premises give grounds for the conclusion but do not make it certain. Induction is contrasted with deduction, in which true premises imply a definite conclusion, the conclusion of Induction is always probable. The probability rate changes as per strength of evidence. Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. 

Induction is of two types, perfect and imperfect. Perfect induction takes support of deduction in later stages to establish a certain conclusion, while imperfect induction does not do this.

There are two main types of imperfect induction. they are, Simple enumeration and Analogy. 

Simple enumeration is a method of arriving at a generalization on the basis of uniform uncontradicted observation of something. This conclusion can be disproved by observing just one single contrary instance. Yet, the conclusion by simple enumeration is highly probable when the number of observed instances is really high. But if one is arriving at a conclusion on the basis of very limited observation, the conclusion is less probable and hence, it is termed as hasty generalization or illicit generalization.

Analogy is a type of imperfect induction where we are comparing two things, persons, groups or classes. while doing so, we observe some similarities and on the basis of these, we infer some further similarity, as we find an additional quality in one of the two compared things, persons, groups or classes. Here, if the observed similarities are relevant to the additional quality, then our conclusion is likely to be true and we may say that Analogy is good Analogy. But if the observed qualities are not relevant to the additional quality, then our conclusion about predicting the additional similarity is not likely to be true, so, we say that such an analogy is Bad Analogy.

In law, we need to use simple enumeration and Analogy to infer things from circumstantial evidence. Of them analogy is more useful in legal matters. Also, while using precedent law, we use analogy to indicate the support of past decided cases  in our matter.

When we see a person following some pattern of behavior or thinking or actions, while talking of the Modus Operandi of that person, we are using simple enumeration as we talk of the generalized pattern of behavior of that person. This is the method followed by criminal investigators quite often. They determine the Modus Operandi of a criminal to find out the criminal and / or to track the criminals. This is a very common practice used by the police in registering the crime record of certain criminals while maintaining their files.

While contesting any matter, the lawyers use analogy in arguing about similar matters, or actions done by an individual in similar situations, to infer about the truth of the statement given by any witness. For example, if it is shown that the witness had reacted in a particular way in the past in similar situations, or has reacted in a particular way in similar situation created in court, then, one can infer that he must have reacted exactly in same way when the actual event had happened that the witness was witnessing. This type of inference adds to the weight-age in argument in court.

Similarly, when we are arguing any matter, we may come across previously decided matters of same type in the same court, or higher court or another court. We use the citation of these matters as case law or precedent law to lead the judge to the conclusion we want, and the procedure of inductive argument that we use in this type of matter is of analogy. This is why is is said that Analogy is of great use in legal arguments.