Using the Sylow Theorems, we can find out whether groups of certain order are simple or not. An example is the following:
$\textit{Prove that any group of order 351 is not simple}$
Given $|G| = 351 = 3^3*13$, we have that there exist Sylow 3-subgroups and Sylow 13-subgroups.
The number of these is given by the third Sylow theorem ($n(p)$ represents the number of Sylow P-subgroups):
$n(13) = 1+13*r$, and $n(3) = 1 + 3*r$ for $r=0$ or $r\in \mathbb{Z^+}$
and, also by the third Sylow theorem,
$n(13)|3^3$, and $n(3)|13$
And this gives us that $n(13) = 1$ or $n(13)=27$
If there is only one Sylow 13-subgroup, then it must be normal, and G is not simple. Therefore there would have to be 27 of them. These 27 groups then contain 12 elements which are distinct to each (because the identity is in all of them), of order 13 (because 13 is prime and any subgroup of prime order is cyclic). This leaves 27 elements to form the Sylow-3 subgroup, and so there can be only one of those, which then must be normal, and G is not simple.
The point is that in this example, there were exactly 27 elements left over after figuring out how many elements were in the Sylow 13-subgroups, allowing us to deduce that there is only one Sylow 3-subgroup. This was crucial.
If that were not the case, would I have still - using Sylow theory - been able to deduce that the group is simple? I suppose what I'm trying to ask is whether it is feasible to prove that a group is simple using similar techniques if we do not have a precise as recipe above - where everything worked very nicely.