Fallacies In 12 Angry Men

Throughout the film 12 Angry men, it demonstrates many critical thinking concepts that we have learned throughout the course of this class. This film as a whole utilizes these concepts in order to illustrate the fallacies and the overall meaning of critical thinking. One major aspect that I noticed that was utilized throughout this film was word choice. In this film, they used their words to depict a certain meaning and tone. However, some of the words that they used can be viewed as either ambiguous, vague or as manipulation. For instance, they used words such as “do-gooders”, “mixed up” and “he wrong, we are right”. The way they used these words altered their true meaning and thus were used in a fatality manner. The word “do-gooders” was used as an expression to dehumanize the person who voted guilty. They said that he was doing a good deed but in the wrong matter.

Moreover, another factor that was indicated among this film was the difference in opinions and inferences. Although they all were provided the same facts, and evidence each individual had their own set

Throughout this entire film, many fallacies are committed. Some include hasty generalization, Ad Hominem, and unwarranted assumption. They use the hasty generalization fallacy and assume that people from particular areas such as a slum are more than likely to commit a crime, and become more violent. They also demonstrate the Ad Hominem fallacy in that they attack the person's character and not the actual argument. For instance, in this film, one of the members of the jury concisely attacks another member due to this viewpoint and calls him dumb and a “do-gooder”. Lastly, another fallacy that is committed is an unwarranted assumption. They use this fallacy to condemn the fact that the lawyer would have seen these facts, and would have brought them up in court. They make this unwarranted assumption that lawyers don't make