12 Angry Men Essay †Pathos ethos and logos Essay

Pathos,ethos and boy in 12 angry menIntroduction Twelve Angry men is a movie of twelve jurors who atomic number 18 struck in one room trying to comprehend with one another whether a young boy is responsible for his fathers death. Emotions meet sex up when one of the jurors stands up for the curse word defending him that he was not guilty. This admit is full of Ethos, logos and pathos. This paper explains some of the places these rhetorical tools argon employed.Pathos, ethos and logos instances In the fritter away twelve Angry men, Juror number eight employs ethos when he was trying to convince juror number ten that the boys father could not nonplus heard the boy presuppose to the old man, I am going to kill you. He says, theres something else I would like to talk about for a minute. I think we have already proved that the old man could not have heard the crack say, I am gonna kill you, but supposing he was trying to convince them that when you say something, it doesnt mean that you are going to do exactly that. We shadower see a clear demonstration of pathos in the film where juror number ten says, he is just a common coarse slob, he does not even speak good English. Juror number elven replies to him, He does not speak English this is a clear irony in the arguments presented by juror number ten. Juror number ten also in another instances demonstrates pathos where he is trying to convine the jury that the slum dwellers are in general bad people when he exclaims, They get drunk oh, theyre real big drinkers, all of em you know that and bang soulfulnesss lyin in the gutter. Oh, nobodys blaming them for it. Thats the way they are By nature You know what I mean? VIOLENT by means of this, we cornerstone clearly seethe emotions that this juror had against the slum dwellers. Logos is extensively employed in the film, but profoundly I noticed it when juror number xi was convincing the other jurors that the old man could not have moved as swiftly as it w as tring to be portrayed because of the formerly suffered stroke. He says, Id like to find out if an old man who drags one foot when he walks, because he had a stroke last year, could get from his sleeping accommodation to his front door in fifteen seconds. This was a logical argument of how the old man could not have dragged himself so fast to see the lad run out of his home. He also convinces the jury of how the woman across the street could not be able to see the boy through the lease without her spectacles on.He explains, Its logical to assume that she wasnt wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep. Then the juror continues by saying, I striket know Im guessing Im also guessing that she probably didnt put her glasses on when she cancelled to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the killing took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a split second later she couldnt have had season to put them on then. H eres another guess maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father I say she only saw a blur. All this was by the juror number eights logical reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, It is logical to assumeHe explains, Its logical to assume that she wasnt wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep. Then the juror continues by saying, I dont know Im guessing Im also guessing that she probably didnt put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the killing took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a split second later she couldnt have had time to put them on then. Heres another guess maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father I say she only saw a blur. All this was by the juror number eights logical reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, It is logical to assumeHe also convinces the jury of how the woman across the street could not be able to see the boy through the train without her spectacles on. He explains, Its logical to assume that she wasnt wearing them when she was in bed. Tossing and turning, trying to fall asleep. Then the juror continues by saying, I dont know Im guessing Im also guessing that she probably didnt put her glasses on when she turned to look casually out of the window. And she, herself, testified the killing took place just as she looked out. The lights went off a split second later she couldnt have had time to put them on then. Heres another guess maybe she honestly thought she saw the boy kill his father I say she only saw a blur. All this was by the juror number eights logical reasoning. It is also clear in the film when he say, It is logical to assumeReferenceshttp//www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/quoteshttp//jiripik.me/2012/06/03/12-angry men teamwork team decision making effect of prejudices/Source document