12 Angry Men by Talita E. Sigillo

Based on the movie 12 angry workforce In the movie 12 angry men, virtuoso shadower explore a variety of patch upacies and generalizations. Each jurymilitary personnel except for aceness comes in with a finding of fact of Guilty, but by victimization critical thinking the rea boys to relief their sh bulge out are dismissed one by one. Except for juryman tot iii who is the last one to change his verdict. He disregards all critical reasoning and sticks to his initial remove using multiple fallacies to view as 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 begetter. Him. Following are precisely some of the multiple fallacies jurywoman procedure three used to support his claim. One of the very first fallacies juryman number three uses is begging the examination. This is when one states an sound judgement as though it is a well cognise fact. When he first enters the room he claims everyone knows he is flagitious and when asked by the critical thinker to explain the reasons for his claim the juryman answers everything Says he is disgraced 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 two testimonies, the critical thinker finds ways to prove that thither is a reasonable doubt in the two witnesses testimonies. Again juror number three uses more than one fallacy to claim that he has no reasonable doubt.It was brought to their attention that the fair sex who testified that she had seen the boy kill the experience couldnt actually see someone clearly. This claim was supported with the pastime reason and train of thought The glimpse of the murder was seen through her sleeping room window, the window of the moving train, across the street and through the victims apartment window. Could, who the woman aphorism commit the murder, be someone else? Juror number three claimed that the woman testified in court and also verbalize The woman verbalise she saw him and finally ended with the woman saw it After reasonable doubt to the testimony is applied, juror number three used the supra quotes as his reasons to support his claim that it was the boy that the woman saw, concluding with evidence that do not follow through with his claim and thus being non sequitor. Juror number three still had a valid reason to believe the boy had committed the murder since the mans testimony was that he heard the boy shout out the phrase Im going to kill you to his father and that the over-the-hill 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 humanity by piece, it was burdened out that, since the murder took place during the passing of a train, the archaic man could not bring forth 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 censurable saying he had no reasonable doubt that the boy said Im going to kill 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 provoked him so much to the point that he said Im going to kill you to the other juror who provoked him, it was brought to his attention that a lot of them could have criminal tendencies equivalent the boy, but having them did not mean acting upon them. It was then that juror number three started loosing control. All the reasons he was using to mask the truth near 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 talking to him. This, according to the places 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 doesnt matter what his father did its his father and you cant say Ill kill you to you father This value that he prioritized along with the incident with his son was what had clouded his judgement and alter his point of view. Juror number three was therefore unable to critically look at the evidence presented since he was prejudiced towards the boy. For Juror number three the boy was guilty to begin with for disrespecting his fath er witch is this Jurors highest value.