s d h w t₁
e d h w t₂
s b h w t₃
s d a w t₄
“w” standing for route through the woods, is seen to be the invariable antecedent.
(4) Concrete example illustrating the second statement.
The Problem: To determine the effect of direct primaries.
| First trial. | ||
|---|---|---|
| Antecedent | Consequents | |
| Direct primary |  | 1. Greater expense to candidate, |
| 2. Greater interest shown, | ||
| 3. Better men nominated, | ||
| 4. “Bumper” crops. | ||
| Second trial. | ||
| Direct primary | | 1. Greater expense to candidate, |
| 2. Greater interest shown, | ||
| 3. Better men nominated, | ||
| 4. Crops below average. | ||
| Third trial. | ||
| Direct primary | | 1. No greater expense, |
| 2. Greater interest shown, | ||
| 3. Better men nominated, | ||
| 4. Crops average. | ||
| Fourth trial. | ||
| Direct primary | | 1. No greater expense, |
| 2. No greater interest, | ||
| 3. Better men nominated, | ||
| 4. Crops average. | ||
It is seen that the invariable consequent is, “Better men nominated.” We may, therefore, conclude that this is a probable effect of “Direct primaries.”
(5) Distinguishing features of method of agreement. The essential characteristics of the method of agreement are three: