I disagree about your assumption that assumptions have no part in logical reasoning. The fact is, there can be no logical reasoning without assumptions (which is my assumption).

See for example this argument:

The production of pencil sharpeners can no longer be profitable. This is because various factors have decreased demand for pencil sharpeners. First, pens are used far more than they once were. Second, those who use pencils often use mechanical pencils. Finally, increased use of electronics has decreased the need for handwriting.

The argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

Availability of mechanical pencils has increased

Students no longer prefer pencils over pens for math calculations

Production of pencil sharpeners cannot be profitable if there is a decreased demand for them

Anything that can be accomplished with pencils can also be accomplished with electronics

Pencil sharpeners are only in demand for the purpose of sharpening pencils

So if I say, cooperation is good for people - therefore the only logical interaction between people is cooperation - people who refuse cooperation act illogical. Which is the assumption therein? Or are there several assumptions? Or is this not a reasonable example for logical reasoning?