Mr. Blaber
Essay/Exposition
Unit 3—Crafting an Argument
Rhetorical Analysis Using
Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men
As you prepare to write your own arguments for this class, you can benefit from
examining how skilled arguers make their cases. To practice, we’ll begin by examining Sidney
Lumet’s 1957 classic film 12 Angry Men, which is a 90-minute series of arguments on film. 12
Angry Men is about 12 strangers who have been brought together by the government to serve as
jurors. Alone in the jury room, these 12 men must decide if an 18-year-old boy accused of killing
his father is guilty or innocent.
As the movie begins, the courtroom portion of the trial has just ended, and the judge is
giving his instructions to the jury. He tells them, “You’ve listened to the testimony; you’ve had
the law read to you and interpreted as it applies to this case. It’s now your duty to sit down and
try to separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead. Another man’s life is at stake. If there
is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused—a reasonable doubt—then you
must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If, however, there’s no reasonable doubt, then you must in
good conscience find the accused guilty. However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous.
In the event you find the accused guilty...the death sentence is mandatory in this case. You are
faced with a grave responsibility.”
As the jurors begin their deliberations, the vote is eleven to one in favor of a guilty
verdict. The single vote for not guilty comes from juror 8. Though some of the other jurors
respond with anger and hostility, juror 8 insists that they spend more time discussing what they
saw and heard in the courtroom. He tells them, “It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off
to die without talking about it first.” As the movie continues, juror 8 argues that there may be
more than one way to interpret a witness’ testimony or a piece of evidence. He tries to show the
other jurors how prejudice can prevent people from judging others fairly. He attempts to educate
them about what it means to have a “reasonable doubt.”
Your task is to analyze juror 8’s arguments as he tries to persuade the other jurors to vote
with him. Remember, in our earlier discussions of argument we learned that a speaker appeals to
an audience in three distinct but related ways. The most central of these appeals is logos, the
appeal to reason, logic, and embodied thought. In addition to logic, an argument’s appeals to the
author’s credibility (ethos) and to the audience’s emotions and interests (pathos) are incorporated
in the way the argument makes meaning.
1. As you watch, take notes (using the chart provided) about each juror’s “conversion.”
2. When the film is done, write a 1-1.5 page analysis of juror 8’s argumentation
techniques. Specifically, you will devote one paragraph each to a specific instance in
which he employs: (1) logos, (2) ethos, (3) pathos, and (4) Rogerian argument. For
each paragraph, explain the context of each scene, the point juror 8 attempts to carry
in the scene, and why the appeal he uses (logos, ethos, etc.) conveys his argument.