Assumptions: the “silent supports” under what we say
An assumption is an unstated claim that must be in place for a statement, criticism, or argument to work as intended. It is not always a conscious belief. Often it is something the speaker takes for granted and therefore does not mention.
When you hear a claim, you can treat it like a bridge: the visible part is the sentence itself, but it stands on hidden pillars. If one pillar is missing, the bridge may wobble or collapse. Spotting assumptions is the skill of identifying those pillars.
Assumptions vs. what is explicitly said
- Explicit claim: what the sentence directly states.
- Assumption (unstated): what must be true (or treated as true) for the explicit claim to make sense, to be fair, or to have force.
Assumptions can be about facts (how the world is), morals (what people deserve or ought to do), or concepts (what counts as “care,” “deserve,” “choice,” “success,” etc.).
Everyday examples: hearing what a sentence takes for granted
Example 1: “If you really cared, you would…”
Explicit claim: Your action (or lack of action) shows you don’t really care.
Common hidden assumptions:
- Listen to the audio with the screen off.
- Earn a certificate upon completion.
- Over 5000 courses for you to explore!
Download the app
- Control: You are able to do the suggested action (time, money, health, permission, safety).
- Knowledge: You know that this action is needed or desired.
- Single best signal: The suggested action is a reliable test of “real caring.”
- Priority rule: Caring about this person should override other responsibilities.
- Conceptual: “Caring” means doing this kind of action (not, say, listening, respecting boundaries, or supporting in other ways).
Notice how the sentence quietly links value (“really cared”) to a specific behavior (“you would…”). That link is an assumption, not a law of nature.
Example 2: “People deserve what they get.”
Explicit claim: Outcomes match what people deserve.
Common hidden assumptions:
- Responsibility: People are the main cause of their outcomes (not luck, upbringing, discrimination, illness, accidents).
- Fairness of systems: Social and economic systems reward effort and punish wrongdoing in a reliable way.
- Information: We can usually tell what someone did to earn their outcome.
- Moral principle: It is good or appropriate that outcomes track desert.
- Conceptual: “Deserve” is being used in a specific sense (moral desert vs. legal entitlement vs. what is predictable).
This sentence often feels “obvious” because it compresses many assumptions into one confident line. Your job is to unpack it.
Example 3: “You chose this, so you can’t complain.”
Explicit claim: Your complaint is illegitimate because you chose the situation.
Common hidden assumptions:
- Freedom: The choice was genuinely voluntary (not coerced, pressured, or made under severe constraints).
- Foreseeability: You could reasonably predict the negative consequences.
- Waiver principle: Choosing something cancels your right to criticize it later.
- All-or-nothing: Either you accept everything about the choice or you reject it entirely (no middle ground).
A practical method for spotting hidden assumptions
Use this method whenever a statement feels persuasive, accusatory, or “too neat.”
Step 1: Restate the claim plainly
Remove emotional emphasis and rewrite it in neutral terms. This helps you see the structure.
- “If you really cared, you would call me every day.” → “Calling every day is required to count as caring.”
- “People deserve what they get.” → “People’s outcomes generally match their moral desert.”
Step 2: Ask: “What must be true for this to make sense?”
Generate a list of candidate assumptions. Aim for 3–8. If you only find one, you probably haven’t looked hard enough.
Helpful prompts:
- Ability: Could the person do what’s implied?
- Alternatives: Are there other explanations or options the statement ignores?
- Standards: What rule is being applied (fairness, loyalty, merit, respect)?
- Definitions: What does the key word have to mean for the sentence to work?
- Scope: Is it claiming “always,” “usually,” or “in this case”?
Step 3: Test each assumption by imagining it false
For each assumption, run a quick “what if not?” check. You are not trying to win; you are checking whether the original statement still holds.
Template:
Assumption: ________ must be true. If not (imagine the opposite): ________. Then the original claim: (still works / weakens / fails).Example test (from “If you really cared…”):
- Assumption: The person can call every day. If not: they work double shifts or have limited phone access. Result: the claim weakens; lack of calling no longer reliably indicates lack of care.
- Assumption: Calling daily is the best sign of care. If not: they show care through practical help or respecting boundaries. Result: the claim may fail; the “test” for caring is too narrow.
Example test (from “People deserve what they get”):
- Assumption: Outcomes mostly track effort and character. If not: luck and structural factors dominate many outcomes. Result: the claim becomes unreliable or morally risky as a general rule.
Step 4: Decide what kind of assumptions you found
Classify each assumption. This matters because different kinds of assumptions require different kinds of support.
| Type | What it’s about | How to check it |
|---|---|---|
| Factual | What is true in the world (abilities, causes, statistics) | Evidence, examples, counterexamples, data, context |
| Moral | What ought to be valued, blamed, praised, rewarded | Consistency with principles, fairness tests, implications |
| Conceptual | What a term counts as (what “care” or “deserve” means here) | Clarify usage, compare cases, check for ambiguity |
Practice: annotate dialogues for hidden assumptions
Instructions: For each dialogue, (1) underline the key claim, (2) list 2–5 assumptions, (3) label each assumption as F (factual), M (moral), or C (conceptual).
Dialogue A
Alex: “If you respected me, you wouldn’t disagree with me in public.”
Jordan: “I can respect you and still disagree.”
- Assumption 1: Public disagreement is inherently disrespectful. (M/C)
- Assumption 2: Respect requires protecting someone from embarrassment more than it requires honesty. (M)
- Assumption 3: Disagreement signals hostility rather than engagement. (C)
- Assumption 4: The setting makes disagreement harmful in a way private disagreement would not. (F/M)
Dialogue B
Sam: “You got a bad grade because you didn’t try.”
Riley: “I studied for hours.”
- Assumption 1: Grades accurately measure effort. (F)
- Assumption 2: Effort is the main cause of grades (not teaching quality, test anxiety, unclear instructions). (F)
- Assumption 3: If someone tries, they will succeed. (F/M)
- Assumption 4: It is fair to blame the student rather than examine other causes. (M)
Dialogue C
Taylor: “People on assistance are just lazy.”
Morgan: “Some are working and still can’t cover rent.”
- Assumption 1: Most people on assistance could work enough to avoid needing help. (F)
- Assumption 2: Needing help is strong evidence of a bad character trait. (M)
- Assumption 3: “Lazy” is an appropriate explanation rather than, for example, disability, caregiving, layoffs, or wages. (F/C)
- Assumption 4: Society should withhold support unless people meet a certain standard of productivity. (M)
Dialogue D
Casey: “That joke was harmless. You’re too sensitive.”
Lee: “It made me feel targeted.”
- Assumption 1: If the speaker didn’t intend harm, it wasn’t harmful. (C/M)
- Assumption 2: The listener’s reaction is an unreliable guide to whether harm occurred. (F/C)
- Assumption 3: The social cost of restricting jokes is worse than the cost of people feeling targeted. (M)
- Assumption 4: “Harmless” means “acceptable,” not merely “minor.” (C)
Charitable interpretation: find the strongest plausible assumptions first
Once you’ve listed assumptions, you can use them in two very different ways: to score points or to understand. Philosophical thinking aims for understanding first.
How to be charitable without being naive
- Start with the strongest plausible version: Choose assumptions that a reasonable person could hold, given the context, rather than the most extreme or insulting version.
- Prefer “local” assumptions over sweeping ones: Interpret “People deserve what they get” as “In this case, the outcome reflects choices” before “The world is perfectly just.”
- Check for missing context: Ask what the speaker might be reacting to (a pattern of behavior, a recent event, a shared norm).
- Separate the person from the claim: You can treat a claim as needing support without treating the speaker as bad.
- Ask clarifying questions that target assumptions: “What makes you think they had control over that?” “What do you mean by ‘care’ here?” “Are you saying this is always true or often true?”
Charity is not agreement. It is the discipline of criticizing the best available version of a claim, which makes your evaluation more accurate and your conversations more productive.
