2.9 Assumptions 67
Read the following passage and discuss one
or more major assumptions underlying the
argument. Consider too how someone might
oppose this argument.[6] After a much-publicised legal battle,
Harvey and Hanah Steinberg watched
with satisfaction as a family of
travellers was forcibly escorted off the
corner of their 12,000-hectare estate
where the group had been living in a
mobile home for 18 months. Not
before time. It had taken four appeals
and cost the Steinbergs a small fortune
in legal fees, but justice had prevailed
in the end. The travellers claimed they
were following a nomadic way of life
going back thousands of years, but
their ways show no respect for private
property or the rule of law. They did
not have the landowners’ permission,
and they did not pay rent. The
Steinbergs therefore have nothing to
be ashamed of in prosecuting the
trespassers, and the court did the right
thing in ordering their eviction.Activity
Commentary
The deep assumptions in this passage are about
property rights. The author clearly presumes
that property owners, like the Steinbergs, have
right completely on their side to choose who
can and cannot stay on their land; and just as
clearly assume that travellers have no
comparable rights to live the life they choose if
it means infringing property laws. There is also
an assumption that trespassing is not only
illegal (which in this case is a fact), but wrong
(which is a value judgement). Without this
assumption it would not follow that the
Steinbergs had ‘nothing to be ashamed of’, or
that the court did ‘right’ – as well as enforcing
the law – to order the eviction.than the men’s and attracts as many, if not
more, spectators and television viewers. If the
women bring no fewer fans, and no less
money into the sport, they should have no less
reward than the men get for their brute force!
Superficially [5] looks like a fairly strong
case, until you look below the surface and see
what is being assumed. The fact is there are
many criteria which could be used to
determine prize money. The author of [5]
relies on just one: one which, of course,
favours the men, and therefore suits his own
argument. This might also explain why the
author has omitted to add, in so many words,
that ‘muscle’ should be the decider. Since he
has no grounds to support that assumption
perhaps it seemed better not to state it openly,
and thereby invite an obvious challenge.
Whether or not the omission was
intentional makes no difference. It is a
seriously inadequate argument, either way,
simply because the unstated assumption is
unwarranted.
Deep-rooted assumptions
In some arguments, such as [4] or [5], what is
assumed is a matter of opinion. You could
easily imagine someone who initially thought
freedom of information was a good thing
changing her mind after seeing websites that
encourage violence, racism or gross indecency.
You could also imagine someone moving the
other way and deciding that freedom of
information is a good thing, and that it should
be encouraged even if some minority groups
abuse it.
But in other cases the assumptions we
make are more deeply rooted or unshakable.
Many arguments make assumptions based on
strong beliefs, strict laws, political leanings, or
shared cultural attitudes and loyalties that we
grow up with and keep for a lifetime. Realising
when an argument rests on assumptions
which we take more or less for granted, and
rarely question, is an important part of critical
thinking and intelligent debate.