Plausible or problematic? Evaluating logical fallacies in a scientific text
Simon P. Tiffin‐Richards, Hannes Münchow, Tobias Richter · Thinking & Reasoning · 2025
Informal arguments are integral to socioscientific discourse. However, even university students often struggle to judge the plausibility of arguments accurately. We investigated whether strategic reanalysis while reading, i.e., looking back and rereading parts of a text, predicts the likelihood of detecting and processing implausible arguments. In two experiments, participants’ eye movements were recorded while they read arguments embedded in an expository text. The text was presented passage by passage and participants judged the plausibility of each section in turn. The results of Experiment 1 (N = 51) and preregistered Experiment 2 (N = 93) suggest that processing arguments containing argumentation fallacies are cognitively effortful, as indicated by eye movement measures of reanalysis of implausible arguments. The pattern of results supports the idea that successful detection and processing of implausible information is reflected in increased reanalysis of flawed arguments, corresponding to strategic processes of epistemic elaboration. Experiment 3 (N = 115) further examined whether plausibility judgements reflect reasoners’ perceived argument strength. Our results suggest that reasoners perceive arguments as plausible when they deem them both persuasive and free of argumentation fallacies.