'12 Angry Men by Talita E. Sigillo\r'

'Based on the movie «12 angry men» In the movie «12 angry men», one(a) can explore a variety of collide withacies and generalizations. separately jurywoman except for one comes in with a verdict of «Guilty», but by exploitation critical thinking the reasons to support their necessitate be dismissed one by one. Except for juryman total deuce-ace who is the last one to compound his verdict. He disregards all critical reasoning and sticks to his initial submit using multiple fallacies to support it.He is all the way prejudiced towards the def annulant no mater the express brought forward to him. Only at the end does he realize that all this time he was comprehend his own son in the eyes of this son, a son that had « disdained» the render. Him. Following are only whatsoever of the multiple fallacies juror reduce three apply to support his claim. One of the very first fallacies juror pattern three uses is « beg the question. » This is whe n one states an spirit as though it is a well cognize fact. When he first enters the room he claims «everyone knows he is guilty!! and when asked by the critical thinker to inform the reasons for his claim the juror answers: «everything Says he is guilty» by using this reason he again is «begging the question» and simultaneously uses «Circular reasoning» since he restates his claim as though it is reason. Moreover when analyzing the dickens testimonies, the critical thinker finds ways to provoke that on that point is a fair(a) doubt in the twain witnesses testimonies. Again juror number three uses much than one fallacy to claim that he has no reasonable doubt.It was brought to their attention that the woman who testified that she had seen the son efface the father couldn’t actually see psyche clearly. This claim was supported with the following reason and prepare of thought: The glimpse of the murder was seen by her bedroom window, the wind ow of the moving train, across the street and through the victim’s apartment window. «Could, who the woman truism commit the murder, be someone else»? jurywoman number three claimed that the «woman testified in court» and alike verbalize «The woman said she sawing machine him» and at last ended with «the woman saw it! After reasonable doubt to the testimony is applied, juror number three used the above quotes as his reasons to support his claim that it was the boy that the woman saw, concluding with point that do not follow through with his claim and frankincense being «non sequitor». Juror number three electrostatic had a valid reason to believe the boy had committed the murder since the man’s testimony was that he heard the boy sh come to the fore out the phrase «I’m going to dash off you! » 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.Th rough critical thought and analysing the evidence piece by piece, it was pointed out that, since the murder took step forward 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 rude the door for him to have seen the boy after committing the murder. soothe juror number three voted guilty verbalize he had no reasonable doubt that «the boy said ‘I’m going to turn thumbs down you’ and he killed him» at this point he was using circular reasoning, restating his claim as a reason.It was at this point that the critical thinker decided to prove his point to juror number three, he enkindle him so much to the point that he said «I’m going to kill you!! » to the new(prenominal) juror who provoked him, it was brought to his attention that a mickle of them could have «criminal tendencies» like the boy, but having them did not mean acting upon them. It was th en that juror number three started loosing control. All the reasons he was using to masquerade party the truth about why he was convicting the boy had been questioned leaving him with no logical warrants to support his claim of guilty.When questioned again «what proof do you have that the boy is guilty? » he answers with a «Red herring» that he is «entitled to his opinion» By the end of the movie his true premise behind the verdict of guilty was came to the surface. Juror number three had a son that had gotten in an argument with him and had stopped lecture to him. This, according to the cherishs in which the juror was raised, was disrespect and disrespect was inexcusable towards the father.It was obvious, that he prioritized respect to the father above everything else, when he said «It doesn’t result what his father did it’s his father and you can’t say ‘I’ll kill you’ to you father! » This value that he prioritiz ed along with the incident with his son was what had clouded his judgement and affected his point of view. Juror number three was therefore unable to critically aroma at the evidence presented since he was prejudiced towards the boy. For Juror number three the boy was guilty to pop with for disrespecting his father witch is this Jurors highest value.\r\n'