12 Angry Men
Reginald Rose
University of Texas at Permian Basin
Business Communications 3311
Michele Harmon
October 30, 2022
2
Mistaken assumptions or claims of cause and effectSome of the jurors believe that the boy is guilty. Juror number 3 does not want to listen to other
opinions as he firmly believes that the boy stabbed his father with the knife in evidence. His
thought was that the boy purchased the knife, and because a witness saw the boy killing his
father and another saw the boy fleeing the scene after the murder, the boy was guilty. Since those
two things occurred, juror number 3 believes the boy is guilty of murder. However, juror number
8 questions this analogy.
Inappropriate appealsThe jurors went into the private room to discuss the case; most jurors believed that the boy was
guilty of the crime, so most had decided that the boy was guilty due to popular beliefs, except
juror number 8.
Hasty or sweeping generalizationsAt the beginning of the video, the judge sent the jurors to a private room to further discuss the
case. However, most of the juror's minds conclude that the boy is guilty without carefully
reviewing the case's details in specific juror number 3.
Ad hominem attacksJuror number 8 states this is an "open and shut case." Because the boy is from a bad
neighborhood, the juror automatically assumes that the boy is guilty of the crime.
3
OversimplificationsSome of the jurors want a yes or no response and get upset if others disagree with their thinking
that the boy is guilty of murder and do not want to take the time to analyze the case. This way of
thinking can most certainly lead to a logical error.
Circular reasoningSome jurors are now starting to believe that the boy is innocent of murder and attempt to disclose
their reasons. For instance, according to the neighbor's testimony, he heard the boy say, "I am
going to kill you," even though a train was passing by. Also, juror number 8 stated how people
could casually say, "I am going to kill you," in the heat of an argument but not mean it.
However, juror number 3 is not receptive. Instead of advancing to a new possible conclusion,
juror number 3 shuts every possibility down and claims the boy is still guilty.
Flawed analogiesJuror number 8 attempted to recreate how long it took the witness to walk from his apartment
bed to the hallway where he supposedly saw the boy fleeing, which was 41 seconds as opposed
to 15 seconds as the witness claimed it took. Despite the time difference, juror number 3 does not
want to reconsider the option of the boy being innocent.
4
Citation
Rose, R. (1957). Twelve angry men. Los Angeles: Orion-Nova Twelve Angry Men.
5
Grammarly Score 100