Does the absence of an explanation of a ruling make it more difficult for the appellate court to uphold the ruling as reasonable?

Although "[t]he absence of an explanation of a ruling may make it more difficult for an appellate court to uphold it as reasonable, . . . we will not presume error based on such an omission." (Gorman, supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 67.) To the contrary, " '[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.' ([Denham, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 564].)" (Ibid., quoting Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140.)