Expanded Notes on Identifying Implicit Steps

---------------------------------------------------------------------

When we argue, we often take logical leaps, either because we don’t notice them or because we don’t think of them as leaps. Thus, it can be the case that we are not sensitive to some of the assumptions that underpin our conclusions. Critical thinking, however, places a high value on taking small steps, and in light of this, critical assessment of an argument may depend on identifying unexpressed assumptions. If you are arguing with someone in real time, you can inquire into what they are leaving implicit; otherwise, you must decide on your own whether to credit them with the claim.

As indicated, there are rules of thumb that can aid in the identification of implicit argument steps. However, because you are proceeding without the aid of the arguer, you must be careful to treat all implicit argument steps as even more provisional than the explicit steps deemed relevant. With that in mind, the following rules of thumb can be of use:

1. Credit the arguer with the step if it is necessary to make the argument go through. (Does the arguer need the step to have an argument at all? If so, it is consistent with the attitude of charity to credit them with it.)
   
   
2. Credit the arguer with the step if its absence would vitiate the argument. (This differs from (1) in that here there would be an argument without the step, but it would be weaker. The attitude of charity is also behind this rule.)
   

Charitable attribution of a step to an argument can be overridden under certain circumstances. Foremost among these is the situation in which the arguer explicitly denies the claim in question. Additionally, one should be leery about attributing a step if it is inconsistent with things said elsewhere by the arguer—here you might choose to be charitable at the level of the overall view rather than at the level of the specific argument. Finally, if the tone of the arguer suggests strongly that they would not endorse the claim, then one should try to reconstruct the argument without it.