Recognising Assumptions

You get a policy question (e.g., "Should X be done to achieve Y?") and four arguments - some "Yes," some "No." You pick the strongest one.

They look like this:

"To reduce pollution in cities, should all cars be banned from city centres during weekdays?"

a) Yes, because people should use public transport more.
b) Yes, because banning cars would reduce harmful emissions that contribute to respiratory illness in urban areas.
c) No, people with disabilities rely on cars.
d) No, cars are expensive to maintain.

These make up ~4-5 questions (~12.1% of DM) and are worth 1 mark each. They're the fastest question type in DM - target 15-30 seconds.

The whole technique fits in five steps:

Step 1: Find the clause. Look for "to...", "in order to...", or "because..." in the policy question. That's the GOAL clause - the reason the policy exists.

Step 2: Test your extraction. Strip the clause out. Does the question still make grammatical sense? If yes, you found the right part.

Step 3: Match the topic. The strongest argument must address the CLAUSE'S topic - not just echo its exact words. If the clause says "reduce pollution," look for answers about emissions, air quality, respiratory health.

Step 4: Eliminate red flags. (See the four patterns below.)

Step 5: Pick the survivor. Usually only one answer addresses all parts of the clause directly and specifically.

The clause is the reason the policy is being proposed. It appears after "to…", "in order to…", or "because…" in the question stem.

"To reduce landfill waste responsibly, should people pay for their domestic landfill waste disposal by volume?"

Test: strip the clause. "Should people pay for their domestic landfill waste disposal by volume?" → still grammatical, so the clause is correctly identified.

Every answer must be evaluated against the clause, not just the policy. An argument can be a perfectly valid reason for or against the policy but still be wrong if it doesn't address what the clause is about.

These patterns show up repeatedly in wrong answers. Learn to spot them on reflex.

Red Flag 1: Ignores the Clause

Question: "To reduce landfill waste, should people pay for waste disposal by volume?"
Wrong answer: "Yes, if people can afford to throw things away, they can afford to pay for disposal."
Why it fails: Talks about affordability, not reducing waste. The clause topic (waste reduction) is completely absent.

Red Flag 2: Too Generic / Sweeping

Wrong answer: "No one would ever agree to pay more for something they already get for free."
Why it fails: "No one would ever" is an absolute claim about human behaviour. Too broad to be a strong argument.

Red Flag 3: Addresses Only Part of a Multi-Part Clause

Question: "To reduce costs, increase accuracy, and improve turnout, should voting be done online?"
Wrong answer: "Yes, it would save money on printing ballots."
Why it fails: Only addresses costs. Says nothing about accuracy or turnout. The strongest answer must address all terms.

Red Flag 4: Tangential Consequence

Question: "To reduce landfill waste, should people pay for waste disposal by volume?"
Wrong answer: "No, people would find alternative ways of dealing with waste such as burning it."
Why it fails: Burning waste is a tangential consequence - a side effect, not a direct argument against the policy's goal of reducing landfill waste.

The most frequent mistake on RA questions: selecting something that is already stated in the argument rather than identifying an unstated assumption. An assumption is something the argument takes for granted without saying it. If it's written in the passage, it's a premise, not an assumption.

Quick test: "Is this claim explicitly written in the stimulus?" If yes, it's not the assumption - it's a given. The assumption is the invisible bridge between the premises and the conclusion.

Question:

"To reduce landfill waste responsibly, should people pay for their domestic landfill waste disposal by volume?"

Options:

• a) Yes, if people can afford to throw things away, they can afford to pay for its disposal.
• b) Yes, people who create more landfill waste should pay more to get rid of it.
• c) No, people would find alternative ways of dealing with their waste such as burning it.
• d) No, people should recycle more of their waste and not just pay more to dispose of it.

Time check: Once you extract the clause ("reduce landfill waste"), options (a) and (b) fall immediately - neither mentions waste reduction. Option (c) is a tangent. Only (d) addresses the clause. Total time: ~20 seconds.

Some questions pack two goals into one clause:

"To reduce costs and improve efficiency, should…"

The strongest answer must address both costs and efficiency. An answer that only addresses one is weaker than one that addresses both.

RA questions test one core skill from the DM taxonomy:

• F1: Evaluating Argument Relevance and Scope - identifying which argument most directly and completely addresses all terms of the policy question, while avoiding tangential or overly narrow arguments.

Every RA question follows this pattern. The clause extraction technique maps directly onto this skill: extract the scope, then check each argument's relevance to that scope.

1. Picking an answer you agree with - This isn't an opinion test. You're evaluating logical strength, not personal belief.
2. Confusing "valid point" with "strongest argument" - All four options may contain some truth. The question asks for the one that most directly and completely addresses the clause.
3. Missing the clause entirely - Skip extraction and you end up evaluating arguments against the policy in general. Multiple answers will seem correct.
4. Selecting a stated premise instead of an unstated assumption - If the answer option just restates something from the argument, that's not an assumption. The assumption is the gap the argument doesn't fill.
5. Overthinking - These are designed to be fast. If you're spending more than 30 seconds, you're overcomplicating it.

Next lesson: 2.2 Probabilistic Reasoning