Recognising Assumptions
Decision Making·Lesson 4 of 8·9 min read
Recognising This Question Type
Recognising Assumptions (RA) questions give you a policy question ("Should X be done?" or "Should X be done to achieve Y?") and four arguments - two "Yes," two "No." You pick the strongest one.
These make up ~4-5 questions (~12% of DM) and are worth 1 mark each. Format: 4 options.
Target time and triage
RA is the fastest question type in DM - target 15-30 seconds. Strong opening-pass priority: do these before anything that requires a table or a calculation. The wins are quick and the marks count the same as the slow ones.
Two sub-types
Almost every RA question is one of two forms. Spotting which one you're looking at decides the technique.
- Clausal questions - the question stem contains "to...", "in order to...", or "because..." followed by a goal clause. "To improve children's fitness, should..."
- Non-clausal questions - no goal clause; just a policy. "Should organ donation after death be automatic unless people have specifically opted out?"
Clausal questions are easier. The clause acts as an explicit ruler against which every option can be measured. Non-clausal questions force you to infer the implicit assumption before you can judge the options - harder, but the same red-flag patterns still apply.
Clausal questions: the technique
Four steps:
1. Find the clause. Look for the phrase that follows "to..." or "in order to...". That's the GOAL clause - the reason the policy exists.
2. Test the extraction. Strip the clause out. Does the question still make grammatical sense? If yes, you found the right part.
"To improve children's fitness and encouraging participation, should retired athletes be paid to coach sports in state schools?"
Strip the clause → "Should retired athletes be paid to coach sports in state schools?" - still grammatical. Clause correctly identified.
3. Identify the underlying assumption. Before looking at the options, cover them up and ask: "What is this policy quietly taking for granted?" For the athletes question, the unstated assumption is that retired athletes would make better coaches than current PE teachers. Doing this in advance prevents you from being talked into a plausible-sounding wrong answer.
4. Match each option to the clause, eliminate red flags, pick the survivor. The strongest answer addresses the clause's topic directly (not just by echoing its words) AND speaks to the underlying assumption.
Clausal red flags
Five patterns show up repeatedly in wrong answers. Learn them on reflex.
| Red flag | Example |
|---|---|
| Ignores the clause | Clause is "to reduce landfill waste"; option talks about whether people can afford disposal fees. Topic drift. |
| Sweeping / no evidence | "Children would be thrilled..." - claim with no basis. Strong arguments cite mechanisms or statistics. |
| Partial coverage of a multi-part clause | Clause says "reduce costs AND improve turnout"; option addresses only costs. |
| Tangential consequence | Clause is "reduce landfill"; option is "people will burn rubbish at home" - that's an environmental side effect, not a landfill argument. |
| Money appeal when not the cause | Clause is about reducing waste; option rejects on grounds of administrative cost. Money isn't the clause's concern. |
A strong answer addresses every part of a multi-part clause AND speaks to the underlying assumption. Anything less is a candidate for elimination.
Clausal worked example: retired athletes
Question
"To improve children's fitness and encouraging participation, should retired athletes be paid to coach sports in state schools?"
a) Yes, children would be thrilled to be coached by someone they've seen on television, and this would make PE lessons more exciting.
b) Yes, experienced athletes know how to make sports enjoyable and inclusive, which would encourage children who normally avoid PE to take part and become more active.
c) No, most retired athletes have no teaching qualifications and would not know how to manage a class of 30 children with different abilities.
d) No, schools could not afford the salaries that retired athletes would expect for coaching part-time.
Step 1 - Find the clause. "To improve children's fitness and encouraging participation." Multi-part: fitness AND participation. Both must be addressed.
Step 2 - Test. "Should retired athletes be paid to coach sports in state schools?" - still grammatical.
Step 3 - Assumption. The unstated assumption is that retired athletes make better coaches than current PE teachers - otherwise there's no reason to bring them in.
Step 4 - Eliminate.
| Option | Verdict |
|---|---|
| a) Children thrilled, PE more exciting | Sweeping ("thrilled" with no evidence). Doesn't address fitness or participation directly. Eliminate. |
| b) Athletes make sports enjoyable and inclusive → encourages avoiders to take part and become more active | Addresses both participation ("take part") and fitness ("become more active"). Speaks to the assumption (athletes make sports more inclusive than standard PE). Keep. |
| c) No teaching qualifications, can't manage 30 kids | Argues against athletes as coaches but on classroom-management grounds - not fitness, not participation. Tangential to the clause. Eliminate. |
| d) Schools can't afford the salaries | Money appeal - the clause isn't about cost. Eliminate. |
Answer: B.
Time check
~25 seconds with practice. The clause does most of the work - the moment you have "fitness AND participation" written down, options (a), (c), and (d) fall fast.
Non-clausal questions: the technique
When the policy question has no "to..." clause, you have to infer the assumption yourself. Four steps:
1. Identify the stakeholders. Read the policy. Who does it apply to? Usually it's a broad group (the general public, all patients, all students). Any answer that talks about a narrow subset is suspect.
2. State the assumption in your own words. Cover the options. Ask: "What is this policy quietly assuming about the stakeholders?" Write it (mentally) as one sentence before you read any answer.
3. Eliminate red flags. Same idea as the clausal version, but the patterns differ:
| Red flag | What to watch for |
|---|---|
| Constraining stakeholders | Option focuses on a small subgroup (religious groups, patients, athletes) when the policy applies to everyone. |
| Partial coverage of the assumption | Option addresses one slice of what the policy assumes, not the core. |
| Making a different assumption | Option only works if you grant another unstated claim that the policy never made. |
| Sweeping / no evidence | Same as clausal: "no one would ever," "everyone agrees," etc. |
4. Pick the survivor. The strongest option addresses the stakeholders the policy actually targets AND speaks to the assumption you wrote in Step 2.
Non-clausal worked example: organ donation
Question
"Should organ donation after death be automatic unless people have specifically opted out during their lifetime?"
a) Yes, thousands of patients die each year while waiting for transplants because there are not enough donated organs available.
b) Yes, surveys show that most people support organ donation but never get around to registering as donors.
c) No, a person's body belongs to them and the state should not be allowed to take organs without explicit permission.
d) No, some religious groups believe the body should remain intact after death and an opt-out system would pressure them to go against their beliefs.
Step 1 - Stakeholders. The opt-out rule applies to the entire public. Stakeholders = the general public, not patients, not religious groups.
Step 2 - Assumption. Why would opt-out work better than opt-in? The unstated assumption is that most people would be willing to donate but currently fail to opt in because they forget, procrastinate, or find the process inconvenient. If that assumption is true, opt-out captures their latent willingness; if false, opt-out is coercive.
Step 3 - Eliminate.
| Option | Verdict |
|---|---|
| a) Thousands of patients die waiting | Constraining stakeholders - focuses on patients, not the public whom the policy affects. Also doesn't address whether the public would actually be willing. Eliminate. |
| b) Surveys show most people support donation but never get around to it | Addresses the public (most people) AND the assumption (they want to donate but procrastinate). Keep. |
| c) Body belongs to them, state shouldn't take organs without explicit permission | Makes a different assumption - that opt-out = forced consent. But opt-out still offers a choice. Eliminate. |
| d) Religious groups pressured against beliefs | Constraining stakeholders - focuses on a subgroup, not the general public. Eliminate. |
Answer: B.
Time check
~30 seconds. Non-clausal is slower because you have to articulate the assumption yourself. The payoff is that once you do, the three wrong options are usually obvious.
The #1 wrong-answer trap
Across both sub-types: selecting something that is already stated in the argument instead of an unstated assumption. An assumption is what the argument takes for granted without saying. If an option just restates a premise, it's not the assumption - it's a given.
Quick test: "Is this claim explicit in the stimulus?" If yes, it's not the assumption.
Common Mistakes
- Picking an answer you agree with. This isn't an opinion test. You're evaluating logical strength, not personal belief.
- Looking at the options before forming your own assumption. Always articulate the assumption first, then test options against it. Reading options first invites you to be talked into a plausible distractor.
- Treating "valid point" as "strongest argument." All four options may contain truth. The question asks which most directly and completely addresses the clause/assumption.
- Missing a multi-part clause. "To reduce costs AND improve turnout" needs an answer that hits both. Highlighting "AND" in the clause prevents this.
- Overthinking. RA is designed to be fast. If you're past 30 seconds, you've drifted into evaluating arguments on the merits rather than against the clause.
Summary
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Format | 4 options, 1 mark |
| Sub-types | Clausal (has "to..."/"in order to...") vs Non-clausal |
| Clausal technique | Find clause → test extraction → state assumption → eliminate red flags |
| Non-clausal technique | Identify stakeholders → state assumption → eliminate red flags |
| Clausal red flags | Ignores clause, sweeping, partial coverage, tangential, money appeal |
| Non-clausal red flags | Constraining stakeholders, partial coverage, makes a different assumption, sweeping |
| Time target | 15-30 seconds |
| Key trap | Selecting a stated premise instead of an unstated assumption |
Underlying Skills
RA questions test one skill:
- F1: Evaluating Argument Relevance and Scope - identifying which argument most directly and completely addresses the policy's clause (or implicit assumption), while rejecting tangential, partial, or stakeholder-narrowing arguments.
Every RA question reduces to this skill. Clausal questions hand you the scope; non-clausal questions make you infer it.