We accept

12 Angry Men | Charm To Pity

Juror eight used Appeal to pity fallacy that was the most powerful fallacy in the film 12 Angry Men. If you want to see which of the fallacies in the film is utilized most effectively, we have to have a closer look at which juror have the best job. Twelve jurors collected in a hot judge room to decide if an 18-season- old son, who was simply accused of getting rid of his father, was guilty or not. At first, eleven jurors voted for guilty and one for not guilty. Definitely, eleven jurors, who voted for guilty, possessed come to vote in a minute and go back home, but it was juror eight who convinced other jurors to change their vote. Despite the fact that 11 jurors voted for guilty, juror 8 proposed an "Appeal to pity" fallacy, that was used most effectively, and helped other jurors to research the events detail by detail, and convinced those to vote for not liable.

Juror eight used "Appeal to pity" fallacy in a highly effective way. He suggested the first fallacy of the film. He did not claim that the boy had not been guilty in a straight way, however when he proposed an "Appeal to pity" fallacy, it became clear that he wished to find a reason to convince other jurors that the youngster was not guilty. As a result, when juror three asked him if he really thought the young man was innocent, Juror eight said that he did not know. From then on, he explained that the boy had not been guilty because he was an 18-calendar year- old guy with a unpleasant past. In juror eight's judgment, the son was too young to destroy his father. This is an appeal to pity fallacy because the boy's era and unpleasant life have nothing to do with his conviction. There can be an important point here. This fallacy is a confident form of your "Appeal to pity" fallacy because when juror eight discussed the boy's past, other jurors started to take into account the events and try to look at the situation in a different way. As if they didn't know any thing about investigation whatsoever, and juror eight's fallacy offered them an idea to investigate all testimonies that they had listened to in main judge room. In addition, he never proved any bad or rude behavior to other jurors. He was always polite. Along with these good conducts, he was very smart. For instance, before the courtroom appointment, he previously gone to check out the neighborhood of the home. This is a kind of smart approach since it unveiled an important point about switch-knife. In addition, even though there is no progress equipment in their hot room, juror eight requested the diagram of the building and provided an idea to other jurors to measure the time intervals of events with simple and inaccurate tools. Initially, other jurors did not accept, however when they listened to juror eight's smart information, they transformed their mind. Due to juror eight's smart set up, other jurors observed the results and add their own examination. For example, juror nine discussed about the dragging leg of the old man who testified in the court docket. Then, juror two talked about the stabbing angle of switch blade. From then on, it was juror four who identified the mechanism of the switch-knife. At last, when all pieces of the puzzle were founded, they transformed their vote for not guilty. Because of this, "Appeal to pity", which was juror eight's fallacy, was the most effective fallacy in the film. It transformed the situation in favor of accused youngster, and preserved his life.

Calm action and effective fallacy of Juror eight convinced juror three. Juror three was the most ambitious opponent, but juror eight finally were able to persuade him to change his vote. This is an important point because juror three never wished to change his vote. As a result, comparing to other jurors, I was very difficult for juror eight to persuade juror three. If we have a closer look at juror eight and juror three and compare their habit, we may observe how well juror eight did and exactly how effective juror eight's fallacy was. Through the appointment, by convincing jurors one by one, the fallacy of juror eight became more and more effective, and the juror three became increasingly more aggressive. In other words, when juror three saw how other jurors were convicted by juror eight's smart techniques, he became more competitive. For example, after taking primary vote, when Juror three talked about the facts and a nearby woman's testimony, he appeared an extremely strong and rational jury, but when juror eight proposed his fallacy, juror three became nervous and attacked to juror eight and threatened him. On the other hand, Juror eight did not pay any attention to juror three's competitive behavior and confident other jurors one at a time. When juror three found that juror eight's effusive reasoning convinced others, he said he didn't care. He extended his opposition and talked about his argument along with his son to verify that he was right. After that, when Juror eight found out that juror eight got a bias contrary to the accused guy, he continued his work more calmly. The quiet habit of juror eight was not tolerable for juror three. Because of this, juror three are more aggressive. He revealed his main reason of opposition and proved the photography of his son. Here's an important point. Actually, this was juror three's turning point because when he tried showing the picture, he noticed his valet. He was very nervous. The level of his anger showed that in response to juror eight's effective fallacy, he previously nothing to say. In my opinion, the calm action of juror eight was one of quite reasons which made juror three irritated, and persuaded him to improve his mind. For example, juror eight was very smart and understood that the anxiousness of the juror three was predicated on his past. Moreover, in the center of meeting, we might see that the debate of juror eight became more personal because he claimed that if he were the executor, he would yank the execution transition. Again, this is juror eight who does better job because his smart behavior appreciated juror three to play his last credit card and show you the picture of his child. At last, when other jurors still left him by itself, he torn the photography of his child and recognized that it was his whole reason. That is one of the most crucial moments of the film. Since it demonstrates the fallacy of juror eight was the most effective fallacy which were able to convince the last juror. In the long run of the film, we see that juror eight completed his smart methodology. He didn't left juror three together. He was the previous juror who calmed juror three and supported him to kept the reaching room. In my opinion, Juror eight's effective fallacy step by step convicted juror three to change his vote, and the quiet behavior of juror eight played an important role in this procedure.

In realization, juror eight used an charm to peaty fallacy, which was the most powerful fallacy in the film, to encourage other jurors to improve their vote. Juror eight talked about the boy's earlier live. For example, he brought up that the son was eighteen years old and could not kill his father. Despite the fact that they were not highly relevant to boy's fee, helped other jurors to think over the case, and analyze the evidence step by step. Without his command, other jurors did not even know very well what to do. A lot of the jurors acquired come to vote in two or three minutes and go home. Juror eight's fallacy gave them an idea of taking into consideration the details. After that, we noticed that other jurors started to think about incidents carefully, and add their own understanding to the main incident. For example, they does various measuring time exams and made a link between the tests. From the debate, other jurors convinced each other and modified their vote predicated on juror eight's fallacy. In the long run of the film, juror three was the last juror who was convinced and improved his vote for "not liable". Juror three was the most competitive challenger, but juror eight's effective fallacy persuaded him to improve his vote. For me, this film is an example of democracy in america of America. Differing people from different interpersonal levels make an effort to convince one another and make a solid verdict to save someone's life. it was the fallacy of juror eight which helped others to find a solution.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment