If they can do the above this means they can probably .....
This is exactly the stance the DWP took over DDs PIP application and their documents were full of this type of supposition which they believe then to be factual representation of someone's disability.
That sort of thinking is so very, very wrong.
Disability isn't like that, autism isn't like that, it doesn't follow that pattern of supposition at all.
Examples I've heard from people who have been subjected to this are
Attends mainstream school - inference/DWP 'fact' is written as therefore can comprehend and communicate everything at the same level as their peers. Can understand all instructions both verbal and written. Nil points.
In reality, the student had differentiated work, had 1 to 1 lessons, had other support, extra time in exams, but despite being informed of that, the DWP at MR insisted their version was TheTruth.
Has a dog - inference/DWP 'fact' is has no mobility issues, can walk the dog, groom it so no problems with hands, arms or back, can feed the dog so can understand written instructions on the food packaging so has no comprehension difficulties, understands what time the dog needs to be fed and walked etc.
In reality, the dog was a family pet, used to support the claimant and other people in the family fed it, walked it and groomed it.
But undeterred, DWP insisted that The Truth is a claimant having a dog also proved they had the above capabilities, without ever asking.
I could drone on for pages and pages with this type of example.
Please, the next time you think "If they can do the above this means they can probably ..... please reconsider, because it is so far from the truth in so many cases when applied to disability.