Enumerative induction in mathematics—the idea that sampling evidence can yield high credence or even knowledge of mathematical statements—was long dismissed, particularly by Frege. However, it has recently regained prominence. This paper aims to move the debate about its viability forward in several ways. First, it clarifies what exact epistemic good enumerative induction might secure. It then critically evaluates three recent arguments for enumerative induction’s viability. Based on this evaluation, the paper proposes a new criterion for explaining why enumerative induction can, in some settings, surmount inductive scepticism. Finally, a case study on Goldbach’s Conjecture illustrates when enumerative induction can meet this criterion.