& Search...

Twelve angry men - argument

analysis

UPLOADED BY

VIEWS

Bob Kavanagh

19,853

LOG IN

SIGN UP

CONNECTREAD
TO DOWNLOAD
PAPER

GET DOCX

4 Pages

Twelve Angry Men A Critical thinkers Argument analysis.

The search for truth, does the end justify the means?

Introduction.

The play and subsequent movie Twelve Angry Men is an examination of the dynamics at
play in a jury room in the 50s in The United States. The action revolves around the opinions,
perceptions, reason and logic of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing
the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that
their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957,
produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role and Reginald Rose who wrote the
original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the elements of Critical thinking found
within the context of this remarkable movie, and will show that rational reason and logic
when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgement that can be
prevalent in a population. Those elements will include:
!

Argument Analysis

Most effective/least effective Critical thinker

Morality (persuasion, obedience)

Manipulation

Fallacies vs Sound reasoning

Chaffee (2010) tells us that we can improve our thinking in an organised and systematic
Within the movie, it can be seen that persuasive argument is employed by one single juror to
way by Carefully examining our thinking process and the thinking process of others
help sway the majority to believe his analysis of the evidence presented, He sets on a course
!
By focusing our attention on various thinking approaches and strategies, we can learn
to reach out to each juror and improve their thinking by reasonable and justified persuasion,

to think more effectively

Bob Kavanagh
!

Page 1

Practicing our thinking abilities. To improve our thinking, we actually have to think

for ourselves, to explore and make sense of thinking situations by using our thinking
abilities. Although it is important to read about thinking and learn how other people
think, there is no substitute for actually doing it ourselves .(Chaffee 2012 p47)
The movie has a simple premise, that a minority may affect a majority if rational thought and
logic are used to construct arguments based on sound reasons and that when this is applied to
lalse logic or fallacies that these can be changed.
Argument Analysis.

There were three points raised in the trial that Juror #8 believed required argument analysis,
1. The knife that was the murder weapon was unique and the boy was seen with it, although
he said he had lost it.
2. The old man gave evidence that he heard the boy say Ill kill you from his apartment
below and that he saw the boy running from the down the stairs from the apartment after
rising from his bedroom.
3. That the old lady saw the boy kill his father through her window, whilst a train was
passing.
reached. The other jurors are content to believe that their reasoning is solid, as they have
used examples of deductive reasoning to reach their conclusion. Chaffee (2012) tells about
Juror #8 analyses each of these points and makes credible arguments that the conclusion is
deductive reasoning. The deductive argument is the one most commonly associated with the
flawed based on incorrect reasoning, by pointing out inconsistencies in the conclusions
study of logic. Though it has a variety of valid forms, they all share one characteristic: If you
accept
the supporting reasons (also called premises) as true, then you must necessarily Page 2
Bob Kavanagh
accept the conclusion as true. (Chaffee 2012 p432)
Juror #3 gives his reasons for reaching the conclusion that Its quite clear that the boy never
went to the movies that night, returned home and killed his father with the knife as identified

in Court Until Juror #8 takes out a similar and knife and poses the question that it was
possible that another knife was used, Juror #7 calls it a million to one however Juror #8
persists in saying it was possible.
He also uses this analysis method to cast aspersions on the second point and third points
raised by systematically analysing each component part and as Proctor (1991) writes by
calling into question the integrity of the evidence, the testimonies of the witnesses, and the
prejudices of the jurors he illustrates the flaws in the presented argument.
Most effective/least effective Critical thinker.

During the course of the debate within the jury room Juror #8 summarises the evidence
presented and the conclusions drawn by his fellow jurors, by asking questions like, what do
we know about that? Or what does this show? He analyses the content, by breaking down the
component parts and analysing each point through examination of what has been presented.
Particularly in the case of the old mans evidence, where he demonstrated the flaws by
physically moving furniture around the room and presenting an alternative version of the
provided evidence. He then synthesises the content by pulling together what he had
summarized, and analysed and discusses it with the input of the other jurors. Finally he
Bob Kavanagh

Page 3

Job Board

About

Press

Blog

People

Papers

Terms

Privacy

Copyright

' We're Hiring!

? Help Center

Find new research papers in: Physics Chemistry Biology Health Sciences Ecology Earth Sciences Cognitive Science Mathematics Computer Science
Academia 2016