MORE EFFECTIVE REASONING II: BETTER LINKS 73these premises is a reflection of the difficulty of thinking deeply enough about
complex issues. When we do, it is usually because we have unconsciously assumed
some complex relationship that, in fact, needs more open analysis.
Here is an example. Imagine we reasoned that 'The economy is growing
strongly at the moment, so employment will also grow strongly'. If we look closely,
this explanation does not represent a clear analysis. The first claim puts together
two components ('economy' and 'growth'); the second (the conclusion) puts
together 'employment' and 'growth'. What has been implied? We do not have to
guess because, from the available information, we can infer that the implied claim
is a premise that connects 'economy' with 'employment'. Such a premise might be:
'Economic growth is necessarily a cause of employment growth'. And, from this
example, we can extract a general rule: when deciding what the implied premise
might be, ask 'on what basis, according to what other piece of information, does
the stated premise (or premises) provide a reason for accepting the conclusion?'. If
the link between the premises and the conclusion is unclear, then there is probably
an implied premise.
The original explanation about the economy contains an implied premise because
the initial 'reason' had not been unpacked, allowing each necessary element to be
written as an explicit claim. Failures to expand reasons properly lead to implied
premises and reflect assumptions made by the person arguing or explaining, which
interfere with smart analysis. Historically, economic growth has caused employment
to grow, but as is evidenced by the past decade in Australia, the new shape of capitalist
economies in the 1990s and the new century means that this old idea is no longer
valid. This mistake—of assuming it is true to say 'economic growth means more
jobs'—has been common in recent years. Because the reason was not unpacked
properly and the analytical relationship made explicit, the original explanation did not
provide a clear opportunity to analyse this assumption and check to see if it was true.
But it is also wrong to rely on implied premises (that is, those that are analyti-
cally necessary but have not been clearly stated) even when such premises are true.
Look at this example:
A computer technician is called out to look at a personal computer that is
not working very well. The technician knows perfectly well what is wrong:
the computer has only got 256 megabytes of random access memory
(RAM), and its owner is trying to run programs that require at least 512
megabytes. So, she explains to the customer, 'Your computer is not
working well because it only has 256 megabytes of RAM'.
What the technician has done, though, is to rely on the implied premise that
'If you wish to run the programs loaded on this machine, then you must have at
least 512 megabytes of RAM'. The relationship between memory, the computer,
and the problem is so obvious to the technician that she has not clearly explained
it. Yet, the customer may not know enough about computers to 'fill in' or infer the
implied premise from the stated explanation. The implied premise here is true.
What has been assumed is that the relationship between the premises and the