Almost all resources I've read about Quantum Entanglement speak about how 'amazing' it is that two entangled particles are bound over any distance, and that the state of one particle determines the state of the other.

I believe that there is possibly a profoundly wrong assumption here that doesn't get addressed properly.
The assumption is that when the state of one particle is observed, it is then, and only then, determined, exiting it's super position state (and thus the state of the other particle also being determined, over any distance, instantly - which is where most of the focus lies when talking about entanglement).

But here is my problem - why is the assumption that the state of the first particle is being *determined* on observation so easily accepted ?
It seems to me much more logical and absolutely free of unexplained voodoo that:

1. the particles are entangled (have opposite symmetrical states).
2. The state of the first and second particles is *unknown* and unknowable until observed, but is predetermined from the moment of the particle's inception.
3. Upon observation, nothing in the particle changes, except that our knowledge of the first particle's state leaves a "super-positioned" state into a specific one.
4. Basic logical consistency dictates that we "instantly" know the state of the second particle, without the need for "spooky action at a distance".

So I guess that my basic premise is - it seems much more reasonable that our (my?) understanding of superposition is wrong, rather than that particles exchange state information instantly across any space.

Please help me understand where I am wrong ?