Logical arguments can alter opinions, but in this case it can change lives. Ethical and pathetic arguments are both crucial in gaining attention, but the real power to create change lies with logical arguments. In order to get the most out of each argument, they must work together to achieve the same goal. In the drama Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror #8 utilizes rhetoric appeals to provide justice and prove the defendant is not guilty of a crime. Juror #8 initially proves that he is credible to add depth into his logical and pathetic arguments and establish trust with the other jurors. For instance, Juror #8 ignites the idea of having a secret ballot to determine where the jurors stand. The idea of the vote brings unity and order to the group, while naturally establishing Juror #8 as the leader. He uses this elevated position to make persuasive arguments. Gaining the attention of the room was the first step in making his rhetoric appeals and defending his not guilty vote. …show more content…
Juror #8 states, “I just want to talk for a while. Look, this boy’s been kicked around all his life. You know, living in a slum, his mother dead since he was nine. That’s not a good head start.”(page 5). He is trying to convince the jurors to explore different perspectives rather than making assumptions about the boy being a rotten kid because of where he is from. Coming from a different approach inspires the other jurors to actually dig into the case rather than just brushing over it. Juror #8 declaring that he just wants to talk leads into the discussion for the rest of the play. He benefits from this open discussion by generating a lane to pitch logical appeals that prove the boy is not