12 Angry Men Fallacies Analysis

Title: Fallacies in the movie ’12 Angry Men’
Name: Prerna Singh
Roll No.: 13110082
Word Count:

The movie ’12 Angry Men’ beautifully presents a number of critical thinking aspects. Fallacies are depicted with excellent examples. Here is a list of the fallacies observed. Every juror had his own set of prejudices which gave way to so many fallacies to come up. The fallacies here are listed juror wise, all the fallacious traits observed in one juror at a time.
1) Juror 1:
i) The juror changes his opinion after listening to the explanations of how the knife was used to hit the man. This could be a fallacy of False Cause. This can be said because just by knowing the way murder was done, it could not be concluded that the kid was

This argument could have been justifiable only if the juror has some proofs of the argument to be true.
3) Juror 3:
i) He generalized the kids of the new generation to be bad just because he had such one experience from his son. This is Hasty Generalization fallacy. ii) He also made a red herring fallacy during the demonstration of old man witness. iii) Fallacy of begging the question was made by him immediately as he has his entry in the room, claiming that, “everyone knows that he is guilty”. iv) When asked to defend his statement, he repeats that everyone knows he is guilty, thus creating Circular reasoning fallacy.
v) Attack on the person was also made by him while stating, “The kid 's a dangerous killer, you could see it...He stabbed his own father, four inches into the chest. They proved it a dozen different ways in court, would you like me to list them for ya?.
4) Juror 4:
i) He commits fallacy of equivocation as he took the meaning of the words of the old man the way they were not meant by him. Also for him, ‘walked, or ran, or went’ all meant the same even when the three words entirely differ in their