Angry men logical fallacies examples

12 angry men
Subject
Humanities

Question Description
so i have this paper on a film called 12 angry men on the fallacies that been used in the film mainly we chose 3 fallcies and we write 3 bodies in each one of them so introduction 3 bodies each one of the on one fallacy then a conclusion i will attaches two papers it will say in it everything you need to build up the essay and as i said i already done but i need it stronger and more matches the requiremnts also i choes the 3 fallaies that you should talk about eSurname 1 Name Professor Course Date 12 Angry Men; Fallacies Introduction The movie 12 Angry Men 1957 is an American courtroom drama created and adapted by Reginald Rose. It is one of his outstanding films being the 12 angry men performed by 12 male characters. The setting of the film is in the jury room of a New York court of law in 1957, on a hot summer day, this setting hence influence the events of the film. The main topic in the film is justice, where justice is of fragile nature and will be determined the eleven men who just want to go home hence vote guilty. The fallacies as illustrated by the jury for fair trial of the defendant with the assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. During the drama, the logical and emotional fallacies are depicted. The three main fallacies that have been used in the film are appeal of fear or pity, sweeping generalization and hasty generalization. Body The juror eight in the film used the appeal of pity fallacy, therefore the audience sympathy, concern, and guilt is used to overwhelm their sense of logic. First, the film begins with twelve jurors gathered in the courtroom to decide the fate (guilty or not guilty) of an eighteen-year-old young man accused of killing his father. Eleven juror voted for guilty with one voting not guilty, the eleven had come to vote and go home, more over leaving the jurors verdict to rely on reasonable doubt on the boy’s guilt. Despite, the knife considered as the murder Surname 2 weapon being unique, an old man overheard the boy swear to kill his father, and an old woman saw the young man kill the father through the window. However, juror eight proposed and convinced other jurors to change their votes hence convincing the jurors to investigate the events systematically and vote not guilty; here the sweeping generalization fallacy is the most effective. The juror eight explained that the boy was just eighteen years of age with a miserable past hence not guilty. Secondly, a conclusion is reached because of inadequate evidence despite juror four being the strongest person by dismissing illogical arguments. In addition, there is also the fallacy of hasty generalization in making the verdict for the boy; where juror 4 has logical argument to base the conviction but still votes not guilty. For example, a number of times he is heard dismissing illogical arguments saying, "I don't see any need for arguing like this. I think we ought to be able to behave like gentlemen."