Title: Fallacies in 12 Angry Men
Name: Niharika
Roll No: 13110068
Word Count: 1049
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American drama film adapted from teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. The movie has depicted the story of a jury made of 12 men who tries to decide on the acquittal of the defendent on the basis of many doubts. The movie is full of fallacious arguments by the twelve jury members.
Any argument with a poor reasoning behind it is called fallacy. An argument can be a fallacy irrespective of whether its conclusion is true or not. Here are some of the fallacious arguments from the movie-
The movie begins with the fallacious arguments by Juror 3 and 10.The Juror 3 and 10 makes it clear about their opinion even before …show more content…
If someone has committed some crime before, it does not mean that he can be convicted for anything using his past records as a basis.
Another juror says that, "Slums are the breeding ground for criminals." . This is totally a logically fallacious argument. We can never stereotype people on the basis of their background. If someone is from slum does not mean that he is criminal like we can not assume a criminal's child to be a criminal.
The woman says that she saw the crime even without glasses through the window of a passing train, the unique knife used in murder ,the angle at which the type of the wound can be made are some other fallacious arguments.
According to the third juror, " it's the kids. . . They don't listen. " He had got a kid ,when he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight and when he was fifteen he hit him in his face, now he is not even in talking terms with his son. He further says " it's these kids, they don't listen now a days." Here the fallacy involves stereotyping rebelious nature of sons. If his son is like that it does not mean every other child will be like that. He can't use this as an argument to consider him guilty . He is actually behaving as a saddist
Name: Niharika
Roll No: 13110068
Word Count: 1049
12 Angry Men is a 1957 American drama film adapted from teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. The movie has depicted the story of a jury made of 12 men who tries to decide on the acquittal of the defendent on the basis of many doubts. The movie is full of fallacious arguments by the twelve jury members.
Any argument with a poor reasoning behind it is called fallacy. An argument can be a fallacy irrespective of whether its conclusion is true or not. Here are some of the fallacious arguments from the movie-
The movie begins with the fallacious arguments by Juror 3 and 10.The Juror 3 and 10 makes it clear about their opinion even before …show more content…
If someone has committed some crime before, it does not mean that he can be convicted for anything using his past records as a basis.
Another juror says that, "Slums are the breeding ground for criminals." . This is totally a logically fallacious argument. We can never stereotype people on the basis of their background. If someone is from slum does not mean that he is criminal like we can not assume a criminal's child to be a criminal.
The woman says that she saw the crime even without glasses through the window of a passing train, the unique knife used in murder ,the angle at which the type of the wound can be made are some other fallacious arguments.
According to the third juror, " it's the kids. . . They don't listen. " He had got a kid ,when he was eight years old, he ran away from a fight and when he was fifteen he hit him in his face, now he is not even in talking terms with his son. He further says " it's these kids, they don't listen now a days." Here the fallacy involves stereotyping rebelious nature of sons. If his son is like that it does not mean every other child will be like that. He can't use this as an argument to consider him guilty . He is actually behaving as a saddist