Understanding fallacious reasoning via detecting moves of motivated criticism in Argument Continuity—a new strategy of circular reasoning in coping responses to disagreement within a distorted reasoning context

Abstract

Reasoning asymmetry arises when biased argument production aligns with biased argument evaluation by the same arguer, a phenomenon commonly termed motivated criticism or biased assimilation. This practice, often wielded by individuals in positions of power, aims to advocate for specific decision options. Argument Continuity exemplifies this asymmetry within a distorted reasoning context, where a motivated critic incessantly reiterates arguments in counterarguments to discredit less powerful opponents, disregarding evidential priority in reasoning exchanges. When these restatements are bolstered by appeals to authority, uncertainty, or the unlikelihood of adverse effects of a decision option, they signify moves of motivated criticism, perpetuating Argument Continuity discursively. The paper seeks to identify and annotate instances of Argument Continuities in Indigenous consultation reports, reconstructing a discourse of motivated criticism among officials responding to resource concerns. By developing annotation guidelines, it aims to classify and predict Argument Continuity, providing a tool to preempt fallacious reasoning by authorities across diverse public policy contexts.