12 Angry Men Fallacies
Talita E. Sigillo
Final draft W.A.C
Based on the movie «12 angry men»
In the movie «12 angry men», one can explore a variety of fallacies and generalizations. Each juror except for one comes in with a verdict of «Guilty», but by using critical thinking the reasons to support their claim are dismissed one by one. Except for Juror number three who is the last one to change his verdict. He disregards all critical reasoning and sticks to his initial claim using multiple fallacies to support it. He is clearly prejudiced towards the defendant no mater the evidence brought forward to him. Only at the end does he realize that all this time he was seeing his own son in the eyes of this boy, a son that had «disrespected» the father. Him. Following are only some of the multiple fallacies juror number three used to support his claim.
One of the very first fallacies juror number three uses is «begging the question. » This is when one states an opinion as though it is a well known fact. When he first enters the room he claims «everyone knows he is guilty!! » and when asked by the critical thinker to explain the reasons for …show more content…
» to his father and that the old man who testified in court, saw the boy running down the stairs and that he heard the body fall. Through critical thought and analysing the evidence piece by piece, it was pointed out that, since the murder took place during the passing of a train, the old man could not have possibly heard the body fall and that it took him too long to cross his room and open the door for him to have seen the boy after committing the murder. Still juror number three voted guilty saying he had no reasonable doubt that «the boy said ‘I’m going to kill you’ and he killed him» at this point he was using circular reasoning, restating his claim as a
Final draft W.A.C
Based on the movie «12 angry men»
In the movie «12 angry men», one can explore a variety of fallacies and generalizations. Each juror except for one comes in with a verdict of «Guilty», but by using critical thinking the reasons to support their claim are dismissed one by one. Except for Juror number three who is the last one to change his verdict. He disregards all critical reasoning and sticks to his initial claim using multiple fallacies to support it. He is clearly prejudiced towards the defendant no mater the evidence brought forward to him. Only at the end does he realize that all this time he was seeing his own son in the eyes of this boy, a son that had «disrespected» the father. Him. Following are only some of the multiple fallacies juror number three used to support his claim.
One of the very first fallacies juror number three uses is «begging the question. » This is when one states an opinion as though it is a well known fact. When he first enters the room he claims «everyone knows he is guilty!! » and when asked by the critical thinker to explain the reasons for …show more content…
» to his father and that the old man who testified in court, saw the boy running down the stairs and that he heard the body fall. Through critical thought and analysing the evidence piece by piece, it was pointed out that, since the murder took place during the passing of a train, the old man could not have possibly heard the body fall and that it took him too long to cross his room and open the door for him to have seen the boy after committing the murder. Still juror number three voted guilty saying he had no reasonable doubt that «the boy said ‘I’m going to kill you’ and he killed him» at this point he was using circular reasoning, restating his claim as a