According to Gary John, there are three assumptions that form the basis for this argument. These are: 1. Groups are more “vigilant” than individuals: Because of natural constraints, any single individual cannot look at all possible angles of a complex problem and thus he may miss an important aspect of the issue. But if there are more members looking at the same problem, then it is more likely that someone among the group has thought of or looked at that particular aspect.
2. Groups can generate more ideas and develop more alternative solutions than individuals: Members of the groups come from different backgrounds with different experiences and outlooks, so that it is more likely that someone will come up with an idea that others had not thought of before. 3. Groups can evaluate ideas better than individuals: This again is a result of various and diverse viewpoints presented by the members of the group. Because individuals can sometimes become emotional when making decisions, it is possible that bias would be introduced into the decision if it was made by a single individual.
Different persons can check for bias and evaluate ideas on a more objective basis so that decisions would be made an the basis of facts and rationality rather than sympathy and emotionalism.