Question 1: List Logical Fallacies Committed by Two of The Jurors. Were These Fallacies Pointed Out to Them? Explain.
The film, 12 Angry Men, presents a scenario that requires the jurors to make a unanimous decision about a case. The ruling is to decide whether or not a young boy is guilty of killing his father. The jurors commit various logical fallacies in handling the issue. One of the deductions is that the murder is revenge by the child for the way his father used to beat him. Another fallacy involves the credibility of the witnesses to the crime. An elderly lady claims to have heard the boy tell the father he would kill him. When the fallacies were pointed to the jurors, they realized they were wrong in believing such testimonies. Moreover, upon investigation, they accepted that there was no link between the boys canning and the murder.
Question 2: Pick Any Two Jurors and State Their Claims for Voting How They Did at The Beginning of The Deliberation and The Warrants That Underlie Their Claims.
While eleven of the jurors passed a not-guilty verdict, one of them gave a guilty judgement. Jury 8, Henry Ford, felt that there were inconsistencies with the ruling. His move is guided by humane deliberations to consider the child as not guilty. Juror 1, Martin Balsam, on the other hand, knew of the truth from the first instance. However, the considerations that underline his claim is because the majority gave a not-guilty vote.
Question 3: Give Two Examples in The Movie of Arguments Being Governed by Emotion. Give Two Examples of Cases Being Ruled by Logic.
Emotions are governing several arguments in the movie. One deduction is when jury 8, Henry Ford, defends the teenager from being put to an electric sit without first conversing with him. He felt worried for the young boy. Another emotional reaction considers the fact that the jury thought that the crime was a revenge mission. There was no association with the two happenings. Instead, it was a justification for the wrongdoing. However, some of the points in the film followed logic. For one, jury 8 saw the necessity to analyze the argument that the knife used by the child got lost. His desire to examine the witness that saw the teen kill his father was a practical way to find the truth of the matter.